@Phil @realcaseyrollins Article I. It sits before and above all the rest. The logic of a representative democracy. I'm sure there are stronger legal theories, I mean to read Siemers' book. Might not be a bad exercise for you as well.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins if this Supreme Court is too deferential to the libs for you, and you think you know better and are entitled to act with violence in pursuit of your views, then i'm not sure how people with views quite different than yours are supposed to engage with you at all. we may need to defend ourselves from you.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins what you perceive as wickedness are other people's values and interests. it is just not the case what he is setting aside is fraud no person of good will could support. he is ruling without authority, not remedying what is widely understood to be pathology. the worst autocrats mostly think they are doing the right thing (even though eventually they find they must resort to regrettable means). that is the path you and your movement is on.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins Congress is fact is superior. It is Article I for a reason. "coequal" is inexact. separate powers, non hierarchical is more exact. there are things each branch can do that the other cannot, ways each branch can check the others. but Congress is who ultimately rules, not the executive, not the judiciary. our Constitutional crisis is an absence of a functional Congress, at a deep level. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/10/myth-of-coequal-branches-david-j-siemers-richard-bishirjian.html

@Phil @realcaseyrollins what if red was green? do you have any meaningful dispute about the purpose of CFPB? you might pursue those purposes differently, lots to disagree about, but if you could speak not as some kind of pinhead oppositional bureaucrat but as a human in good faith, do you understand its history and purpose? do you think that unconstitutional?

btw this Supreme Court just heard and dispatched a Constitutional challenge to CFPB. they're too tough on your side, i know.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins it has to continue also to perform the function for which Congress established it. Trump’s job is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the laws Congress made.

@realcaseyrollins @Phil Yeah. It's from Dodd-Frank, HR 4173 i just took the language from US code. Here's the original https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4173/text you'll find the identical text (Section 1011)

if you wanna know why current US authorities may come after Internet Archive, here's an example of the kind of history they might like erased https://www.muskwatch.com/p/doge-teen-ran-image-sharing-site

@richpuchalsky (i didn't know they did! i hope so.)

the United States is too small and fragile a basket for the Internet Archive to keep all our history in.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins it's a slam dunk! maybe a newly-deferential-to-the-executive Supreme Court can be persuaded to "unitary-executive" all precedent out of existence, but that speculation is hardly any kind of license to "take it to the wood chipper" as a fact on the ground, without even a memo from OLC trying to justify it. this is just Musk moving fast and breaking people. your whole case is ex post backfilling of that.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins That set up purposes for US foreign policy. JFK creates AID then as a purely executive construction, which a President could reorganize away. In 1997, Congress wants to formalize the organization of US foreign policy, formalizes the status quo in law, and defines a time limited procedure under which it might be modified. That time limit is long passed. The Congressional formalization of the US foreign policy apparatus is complete.

@realcaseyrollins @Phil To what conclusion? That something Congress establishes in law can only be unestablished by Congress?

@Phil @realcaseyrollins Congress declares the agency exists, then describes all kinds of stuff about it, attributes purposes and functions to it. It describes a potential reorganization — which could potentially abolish it! — and attaches a deadline to that. After the deadline has passed and it has not been abolished, it has clearly enshrined the existence of the agency as a matter of law.

@realcaseyrollins @Phil No. Nothing must exist in perpetuity. The Constitution can be constitutionally abolished by amendment (everything except equal suffrage of states in a Senate which would no longer exist). But only Congress can end USAID's existence.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins to the degree Congress gives the executive discretion in how its expenditures are administered, that's fine. if Congress does not explicitly allocate funds to AID, the executive can pursue its purposes through other aspects of state, sure.

but AID must continue to exist. and any expenditures specifically allocated to AID must be spent for its intended purposes through AID.

@realcaseyrollins @Phil Congressional action doesn't sunset unless the law they pass explicitly imposes such a sunset. absent some explicitly enacted executive option to abolish, only Congress can undo what Congress had said must exist.

@Phil @realcaseyrollins "there is within the executive branch of Government the United
States Agency for International Development as an entity described in
section 104 of title 5, United States Code."