"For the Public's Interest"

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Interesting question: let's say a Dem wins the presidency and starts firing Republicans because they oppose his agenda.  His rationale? "Because it's in the public's interests. After all, the Republican is working against my agenda, which means he's working against the nation's interests, and so I have justification to fire him."  Is this legal or illegal? 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/12/2020 at 3:51 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Interesting question: let's say a Dem wins the presidency and starts firing Republicans because they oppose his agenda.  His rationale? "Because it's in the public's interests. After all, the Republican is working against my agenda, which means he's working against the nation's interests, and so I have justification to fire him."  Is this legal or illegal? 

There are 3000-4000 Federal government political appointees that are the top layer of all agencies of all departments but for the few independent ones. Generally, they all go with a new administration. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 2/13/2020 at 4:51 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Interesting question: let's say a Dem wins the presidency and starts firing Republicans because they oppose his agenda.  His rationale? "Because it's in the public's interests. After all, the Republican is working against my agenda, which means he's working against the nation's interests, and so I have justification to fire him."  Is this legal or illegal? 

Are you suggesting that he fires Republican Congressmen and Senators? Not possible under the Constitution.

If you mean getting rid of Republicans in appointed positions, I suppose that is his purview. This, of course, would be viewed as a petulant, childish, witch hunt UNLESS it was obvious that his appointee was actually the best person for the job.

The Democrats are increasingly being viewed as adolescent-like, ‘do nothing’ obstructionists who forgot that they were elected to do what is best for the country.

Getting rid of people simply due to their political association would be a very dangerous strategy for the Democratic party at this point in time.  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

19 hours ago, 0R0 said:

There are 3000-4000 Federal government political appointees that are the top layer of all agencies of all departments but for the few independent ones. Generally, they all go with a new administration. 

Further, all political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President.  It is his (or her, in the future) prerogative to let any political appointee go (essentially fire them).  As @0R0 pointed out, there are thousands of them, so there is an overlap from one administration to the next where some key political appointees from the last administration are asked to stay on until a suitable replacement can be found, vetted and approved.  Sometimes the appointee from the last administration is still the right person for the job, and as long as they don't show political bias or prove themselves unwilling to carry out the current administration's policies (what the current President was elected to implement and carry out/enforce), they can stay in their position for as long as they are effective or until they wish to leave, just like the rest of us in any job.

If a person in a political appointee position, say the Director of the FBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation), is shown to have acted against the President and/or his administration for purely political reasons, that person can be removed at the President's discretion.  The President does not need to prove his reasons or even state them publicly; it is at his discretion at any time and for any reason.  The backlash that gets headlines in the media on occasion comes usually from the opposing political party and its supporters, and that is simply for political reasons as well.

Any President has to of course be cautious when firing political appointees that are key figures in the government due to the impact it may have on him or his party's next candidate getting reelected/elected, but the law is on the President's side.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 2/13/2020 at 3:51 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Interesting question: let's say a Dem wins the presidency and starts firing Republicans because they oppose his agenda.  His rationale? "Because it's in the public's interests. After all, the Republican is working against my agenda, which means he's working against the nation's interests, and so I have justification to fire him."  Is this legal or illegal? 

Absolutely legal.

[George8944 + 128]

22 hours ago, 0R0 said:

There are 3000-4000 Federal government political appointees that are the top layer of all agencies of all departments but for the few independent ones. Generally, they all go with a new administration. 

My cousin was one of the few Obama appointees that Trump kept.   She's seems to avoid the politics and concentrates on just doing an excellent job.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Ok then. Excellent.  Glad to have everyone on record.  

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Next question: can a president investigate political rivals "for the public interest" using his executive powers? Also, what are your thoughts on executive orders and declarations of national emergency to get around Congressional directives? 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Next question: can a president investigate political rivals "for the public interest" using his executive powers? Also, what are your thoughts on executive orders and declarations of national emergency to get around Congressional directive?

Next question, from a different perspective:  Can a president direct the Justice Department to investigate past government officials that have been accused in public and further in Congressional hearings of bribery and using their office to promote self interest by financial gain, especially where compelling evidence is claimed to be available?

Executive Orders.  As per The Heritage Foundation:

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/heritage-explains/executive-orders

Presidential Authority

Under our system of government, the president’s authority to issue such orders (or to engage in any other form of unilateral executive action) must come from the Constitution or federal law. Put another way, an executive order can be used to execute a power the commander in chief already has. It can’t be used to give the presidency new powers.

In particular, Article II of the Constitution assigns the president the roles of commander in chief, head of state, chief law enforcement officer, and head of the executive branch. The president has the sole constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and is granted broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions.

“He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly,” Heritage Foundation scholar Todd Gaziano wrote in 2001.

When the president lawfully exercises one of these responsibilities, scholars generally agree, the scope of his authority to issue executive orders and other directives is especially broad. As such, Congress has little ability to regulate or limit that authority.

When a president’s authority comes from power granted by statute, Congress is free to negate or modify that authority, or pass legislation to nullify the order itself, because the Constitution empowers Congress to make the laws that govern us. Still, the president has to sign the law enacting that change, unless Congress is able to override his veto.

Federal courts also may strike down executive orders that exceed the scope of the president’s authority, as an appeals court did with President Bill Clinton’s order forbidding government contracts with businesses that employed strike-breakers, and the Supreme Court did with his order requiring the government to use foreign languages in providing federal benefits and services.

So the answer is Yes.  If Congress or the courts believe the President has overstepped his authority, they may challenge it and strike it down if they are proven right.  If they do not, the President is within his authority and Congress or the opposing political party can only whine in public.

 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

That's sorta ironic considering that Congress passed a budget that explicitly said "thou shalt not use money for border wall."  I thought it was Congress that had power of the purse.  Can a president unilaterally, without Congressional approval, use declarations of national emergency to spend money as  he or she sees fit?

Need a clear answer on this.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, Zhong Lu said:

That's sorta ironic considering that Congress passed a budget that explicitly said "thou shalt not use money for border wall."  

Again:  If Congress or the courts believe the President has overstepped his authority, they may challenge it and strike it down if they are proven right.  If they do not, the President is within his authority and Congress or the opposing political party can only whine in public.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Ah. So if Bernie Sanders takes the presidency, then by declaration of national emergency he can do what he sees fit? As long as the Dems hold one house of Congress this means Republicans can do nothing but whine, right? 

Interesting precedents we're setting here. Thank you for your views.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

Ah. So if Bernie Sanders takes the presidency, then by declaration of national emergency he can do what he sees fit? 

Please try to absorb this statement:

Again:  If Congress or the courts believe the President has overstepped his authority, they may challenge it and strike it down if they are proven right.  If they do not, the President is within his authority and Congress or the opposing political party can only whine in public.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Exactly.  If Congress is divided and the Dems control the house, then by your logic whatever President Bernie Sanders declares is lawful because "Congress cannot strike down the action."  

Thank you for establishing your views.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Personally I think this would be an awful thing to happen, but you're the ones arguing for this.  Also, YOU guys are the ones setting the precedent.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

That's why it is called "balance of power" by the 3 branches of government.  There are always 2 branches in a position to challenge the 3rd branch.  But if they only whine in public and take no action to strike down the action of the branch they are complaining about, there's a good chance it is only a difference of opinion or policy, but they know they can't strike it down.  That's politics for you: lots of whining and hand-wringing when you don't get your way, or you're jealous that another party DID get their way.  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Exactly.  If Congress is divided and the Dems control the house, then by your logic whatever President Bernie Sanders declares is lawful because "Congress cannot strike down the action."  

Thank you for establishing your views.  

Nope.  Misinterpretation and twisting of the words.  Fail.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Ok, then.  So if Bernie Sanders becomes president and declares a national emergency to stop fracking because "of the damage it would do to the climate", and the Dems control the house, there's nothing you can do right? 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Just now, Dan Warnick said:

Nope.  Misinterpretation and twisting of the words.  Fail.

Not really. No.  According to your definition "only if Congress can strike down the action is the action unlawful."  So if Congress cannot strike down one of Bernie Sander's declarations, that means it's the law, right? 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Personally I think this would be an awful thing to happen, but you're the ones arguing for this.  Also, YOU guys are the ones setting the precedent.  

I am doing nothing but trying to help you along on your way to understanding the law.  You choose to ignore that effort.  Very similar to the Democrats in Washington that are not happy they don't get it their way just because they want to.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Ok, then.  So if Bernie Sanders becomes president and declares a national emergency to stop fracking, and the Dems control the house, there's nothing you can do right? 

Nope.  There you go again.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

What can you do? He made a declaration of national emergency.  That's within his power, and then he uses an executive action to stop fracking, which is also within his power according to your definition.  To stop him, Congress must vote him down.  But the Dems control the House so they don't vote his declaration down.  Thus, no more fracking in the US.  I'm just using your argument that you said right there.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Not really. No.  According to your definition "only if Congress can strike down the action is the action unlawful."  So if Congress cannot strike down one of Bernie Sander's declarations, that means it's the law, right? 

If the courts and Congress test the law and find that the President is within his powers, that is correct.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Good. So you're saying Bernie Sanders, if he becomes president CAN unilaterally declare an end to fracking using his executive powers, and if Congress is split, it becomes the law.  Am I right? 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, Zhong Lu said:

What can you do? He made a declaration of national emergency.  That's within his power, and then he uses an executive action to stop fracking, which is also within his power according to your definition.  To stop him, Congress must vote him down.  But the Dems control the House so they don't vote his declaration down.  Thus, no more fracking in the US.  I'm just using your argument that you said right there.

Nope.  Congress can then go to the courts to argue their case.  Then the courts would have the final say.  If the courts agreed with the President, then the order(s) would stand until the next president is in office and decides to reverse the decision.