@Phil @realcaseyrollins not me alone. you and me and 350M of our peers.
but like pornography, most of us know betrayals of good faith when we see them, and most of us will agree. taking Congressionally established agencies to the wood chipper or tombstone without any Congressional authority strikes me as a pretty clear betrayal of a good faith reading of the law. do you really disagree?
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i think we are oppressed much more by the incapacity of our government than by its waste. and given the clusterfuck Congress has become, our government functions remarkably well as a creature with its head cut off. our task is to restore a Congress that represents the American public in all its divers... plurality, and legislates vigorously on our behalf.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins a majority of voters voted against the current President. a narrow plurality voted for him. yes, Presidents necessarily interpret laws, but those interpretations must be bound by good faith readings, can and must be disciplined by the courts and Congress.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins officials do not always do their jobs. the parameters of a law are sometimes in dispute.
that's what lawsuits are for. it's not grounds to abandon the principle that the executive's duty is to ensure Congress' laws take effect.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins from https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-the-myth-of-the-coequal-branches-became-the-norm/
Text: But these functions being “co-ordinate” does not make each branch equally important in ruling over us. Neither the executive nor the judiciary can wield power unless the legislative has already exercised its power. Moreover, the essential principle of republican government is that the people exercise sovereignty over the lawmaking process. The enforcement and adjudication of the law are supposed to follow from the clear expressions of the law itself. This is why it is important that Congress reflect the public will. It is less important for the police and judges to reflect us; rather, they should follow the laws that we write.
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Yes. the President has duties beyond taking Care the laws be faithfully executed. But that is his duty, and it's a big one, not optional.
[edited: i initially wrote "Congress" where i meant "the President".]
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Usually I look forward to meeting social media interlocutors in real life. With you I wonder whether you'd harm me. You perceive my politics as a threat to your liberty. What does that entitle you?
@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
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Perhaps not, because AID did already exist as an executive creature. i don't know if there are others quite the same. 1/
@realcaseyrollins @Phil how about this one? "There is established in the Federal Reserve System, an independent bureau to be known as the 'Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection', which shall regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws." https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:12%20section:5491%20edition:prelim) 2/
@realcaseyrollins @Phil you guys wanna justify Musk's 🪦 there? /fin
@richpuchalsky (i didn't know they did! i hope so.)
@realcaseyrollins @Phil they explicitly foresee a reorganization that might even abolish it, and set a deadline for that, which is long passed. what point is there for Congress to define these things, define a process by which they might be reorganized, and define a termination date for that reorganization, if a President could with no process just reorganize it away anyway? 1/
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Congress creates things by saying they exist. Let there be light. That in this case there did exist something of the same name that they were explicitly codifying and formalizing doesn't somehow deplete that. /fin
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.
