The executive branch's ability to simply de-staff and de-fund organizations whose existence is enshrined in law seems like a clear imbalance as far as the separation of powers goes. Effectively a line item veto of sorts across every aspect of government / law. A magical power that only the executive branch is being granted (coincidentally only when the executive branch's political party matches the majority of SCOTUS).
Does congress pass a law that says for an agency to do a thing with a veto proof majority? Doesn't matter, executive branch can just choose to de-fund and de-staff it ...
The fact that SCOTUS indicates they're not making the final call on this right now seems to simply play into the hands of those who don't really care to follow the law anyway.
It's doubly strange that with a single party now controls congress and the executive branch and they clearly have the power to actually change the law utilizing many other elected representatives who are presumably responsive to the people ... the executive branch is still granted this extra power to simply ignore the will of congress.
To be clear I think nobody in the executive branch, of any given party, independent, or otherwise should be granted these powers. Same goes for the magical immunity granted Trump not long ago. If anything the executive branch and those in power should be subject to far more legal scrutiny.
I'm aware: In this case it bolsters the argument, since it shows even groups that have in the past been sympathetic to Republicans also condemned it as a weird/wrong/dangerous stance.
Congress, obviously. They are rather specifically granted the power of the purse. I don't always like how they use it, but that's how it's supposed to work.
1. Senate makes the House more-or-less powerless through over-represented small states and long-term political dynasties. (House is wildly gerrymandered, but that's moot.)
2. Senate is sufficiently partisan and supplicant to the executive. Subordinate VP often breaks ties.
3. SCOTUS is packed even more than 2. because Obama was a wimp and RBG refused to retire.
4. SCOTUS incrementally legislates from the bench that POTUS is more-or-less king with every ruling that defies legal and traditional precedent.
Result: Welcome to third world USA, Brazil edition.
The executive branch's ability to simply de-staff and de-fund organizations whose existence is enshrined in law seems like a clear imbalance as far as the separation of powers goes. Effectively a line item veto of sorts across every aspect of government / law. A magical power that only the executive branch is being granted (coincidentally only when the executive branch's political party matches the majority of SCOTUS).
Does congress pass a law that says for an agency to do a thing with a veto proof majority? Doesn't matter, executive branch can just choose to de-fund and de-staff it ...
The fact that SCOTUS indicates they're not making the final call on this right now seems to simply play into the hands of those who don't really care to follow the law anyway.
It's doubly strange that with a single party now controls congress and the executive branch and they clearly have the power to actually change the law utilizing many other elected representatives who are presumably responsive to the people ... the executive branch is still granted this extra power to simply ignore the will of congress.
To be clear I think nobody in the executive branch, of any given party, independent, or otherwise should be granted these powers. Same goes for the magical immunity granted Trump not long ago. If anything the executive branch and those in power should be subject to far more legal scrutiny.
This is the new dictatorial territory entered by a "Unitary Executive" theory certain groups have been pushing for quite a while now, ex:
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2006/imperial...
s/Unitary Executive/king/
FYI: Cato is a climate denialist (fake IPCC reports), Koch-originated think tank with a heavy overlap of libertarian ideology.
I'm aware: In this case it bolsters the argument, since it shows even groups that have in the past been sympathetic to Republicans also condemned it as a weird/wrong/dangerous stance.
> de-staff and de-fund organizations whose existence is enshrined in law
> nobody in the executive branch, of any given party, independent, or otherwise should be granted these powers
Then who should be able to defund and destaff organizations? Nobody? Should they last forever simply because they were legislated at one point?
---
[ EDIT since I can't comment anymore today ]
My mistake, I did not see the word "congress" in the text I was quoting.
My mind has been shut down for about 49 days. It's difficult to think at all.
Congress, obviously. They are rather specifically granted the power of the purse. I don't always like how they use it, but that's how it's supposed to work.
Congress.
1. Senate makes the House more-or-less powerless through over-represented small states and long-term political dynasties. (House is wildly gerrymandered, but that's moot.)
2. Senate is sufficiently partisan and supplicant to the executive. Subordinate VP often breaks ties.
3. SCOTUS is packed even more than 2. because Obama was a wimp and RBG refused to retire.
4. SCOTUS incrementally legislates from the bench that POTUS is more-or-less king with every ruling that defies legal and traditional precedent.
Result: Welcome to third world USA, Brazil edition.