How do we shift power from the White House back to Congress?

[Wat_Tyler]

Lol no. The dems will just say "man just wait till we can do it ourselves."

We're permanently fucked.

Yes we are . . . at least as it is.


No amendments will correct that, either.

 

[UltraChad]

Now all those petty little bureaucrats are learning exactly who is in charge and they don't like it....................fuck'em.

https://media.tenor.com/YyLROAiKZzoAAAAM/office-space-fuckin-a.gif

 

[butters]

'I'll declare myself dictator for a day'.
'You won't have to vote ever again'.
'He who saves a nation violates no law'

He who declares himself dictator writes the laws.

exactly

 

[Politruk]

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal bureaucracy defined as a branch of government, it isn't and they ALL work for the executive branch and that means they ALL work for the president.

They don't simply carry out the president's orders. Every agency has its own mission statement, provided by Congress, and a recognized zone of political independence from the White House.

I would have thought we settled this once and for all in the W Administration -- the WH never got anywhere with its "unitary executive" theory.

 

[UltraChad]

They don't simply carry out the president's orders. Every agency has its own mission statement, provided by Congress, and a recognized zone of political independence from the White House.

I would have thought we settled this once and for all in the W Administration -- the WH never got anywhere with its "unitary executive" theory.

I'm sorry you actually think POTUS has no power over the executive branch just because it's not a Democrat POTUS.

You're fucking retarded.

 

[Politruk]

I'm sorry you actually think POTUS has no power over the executive branch just because it's not a Democrat POTUS.

You're fucking retarded.

Of course the POTUS has power over the executive branch -- but not like a CEO has power over his company. Nowhere near that absolute.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Of course the POTUS has power over the executive branch -- but not like a CEO has power over his company. Nowhere near that absolute.

It is as long as the executive does not infringe on the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.

 

[Politruk]

It is as long as the executive does not infringe on the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.

The executive agencies also have their zones of autonomy. They are not bound to follow presidential orders that conflict with their missions.

 

[UltraChad]

Of course the POTUS has power over the executive branch

I'm glad you understand Trump is the boss of the Executive branch now.

You lost the democracy game....now it's MAGA's turn.

 

[UltraChad]

The executive agencies also have their zones of autonomy. They are not bound to follow presidential orders that conflict with their missions.

^^^
The latest "POTUS isn't CinC or the Executive branch's top official." denial ....LOL that's funny.

 

[Politruk]

^^^
The latest "POTUS isn't CinC or the Executive branch's top official." denial ....LOL that's funny.

Nixon found out he wasn't when the Saturday Night Massacre blew back on him.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Nixon found out he wasn't when the Saturday Night Massacre blew back on him.

That was not Nixon's downfall.

 

[Politruk]

That was not Nixon's downfall.

It led to his downfall.

The "Saturday Night Massacre" was a series of resignations over the dismissal of special prosecutor Archibald Cox that took place in the United States Department of Justice during the Watergate scandal in 1973.[1] The events followed the refusal by Cox to drop a subpoena for the Nixon White House tapes at President Richard Nixon's request.

During a single evening on Saturday, October 20, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out the dismissal as Nixon asked.[2] Bork stated that he intended to resign afterward, but was persuaded by Richardson and Ruckelshaus to stay on for the good of the Justice Department.[3][4]

The political and public reactions to Nixon's actions were negative and highly damaging to the president. The impeachment process against Nixon began ten days later, on October 30, 1973. Leon Jaworski was appointed as the new special prosecutor on November 1, 1973,[5] and on November 14, 1973, United States District Judge Gerhard Gesell ruled that the dismissal had been illegal.[6][7] The Saturday Night Massacre marked the turning point of the Watergate scandal as the public, while increasingly uncertain about Nixon's actions in Watergate, were incensed by Nixon's seemingly blatant attempt to end the Watergate probe, while Congress, having largely taken a wait-and-see policy regarding Nixon's role in the scandal, quickly turned on Nixon and initiated impeachment proceedings that would end in Nixon's resignation.

 

[UltraChad]

Nixon found out he wasn't when the Saturday Night Massacre blew back on him.

Terrible deflection....Nixon was still CinC and effectively the Chief GOD KING of the Executive branch.....POTUS always has been, always will be.

JUST like when Democrat hold office.

 

[Politruk]

Terrible deflection....Nixon was still CinC and effectively the Chief GOD KING of the Executive branch.....POTUS always has been, always will be.

JUST like when Democrat hold office.

Never that simple.

In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch.[1] It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House".[2] The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making.[3] There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons.[4][5][6] Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.[7][8][9][10]

 

[UltraChad]

Never that simple.

It is that simple.

 

[Politruk]

It is that simple.

The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making.

Not simple.

 

[Politruk]

OK, this question is now growing more urgent every day!

 

[Politruk]

This grows more and more urgent.

 

[TheGxForum]

Only through voting...

 

[Rightguide]

It occurs to me that a period when the same party controls both branches is exactly the right time to dismantle the Imperial Presidency -- because that is when it can be done without being in any way a partisan contest -- attention can be focused on the proper allocation of power between branches, not between parties.

You'll have to amend the Constitution. Congress does not run the government.

 

[Politruk]

You'll have to amend the Constitution. Congress does not run the government.

Neither does the president, in the way this administration appears to think.

 

[LLCox]

Congress does not want the responsibility. That is why they gave it to the Executive Branch.

 

[Politruk]

Consider this "impoundment" business. It is certainly a usurpation of Congress' constitutional role for the president to withhold funds Congress has allocated -- it amounts to a veto that not even a 2/3 vote can overturn.

The most important element of constitutional government is that the legislature, not the executive, has control over the money. It was his refusal to accept that that cost Charles I his head.

 

[Politruk]

Consider this "impoundment" business. It is certainly a usurpation of Congress' constitutional role for the president to withhold funds Congress has allocated -- it amounts to a veto that not even a 2/3 vote can overturn.

The most important element of constitutional government is that the legislature, not the executive, has control over the money. It was his refusal to accept that that cost Charles I his head.

And impoundment is illegal, under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.