zeke5123a
6mo ago
It also ignores that it is still a massive number that could be used to really help your allies both abroad and in the states which the Dems seem to be doing.
Also it is purely debt financed. Wouldn’t it be nice if for the last twenty years that number would’ve been zero? That would represent a material decrease in the national debt.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Except they said there are some good things and Rubio is going to tackle it
zeke5123a
6mo ago
I don’t think those laws are constitutional — especially when the civil servant ignores an EO.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
So if we are agreeing that the president could stop unauthorized spending then we are disagreeing on method. I think they found out USAID was doing a lot of bs and have decided freeze spending first and then backfill what is actually needed. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach and not a constitutional crisis. It is only a crisis if they don’t backfill afterwards. That is, you seem to want business as usual in Washington where they start with last years budget and try to find something that may not fit. They are zero baseline budgeting.
Re birthright citizenship the caselaw here is actually muddy. You could argue that the permanent resident case people cite cannot be squared with Elk and therefore the permanent resident case could be read to apply only to lawful permanent residents and not illegals. That is, you could factually distinguish the two.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
See the Steel Seizure cases. Where there is a use of the explicit core power of the president, then his power is at its zenith. His ability to take care the laws are faiths executed is a core power. Preventing him from firing people (or even putting them on admin leave) meaningful interferes with his core constitutional duty. If the president can’t fire the bureaucrats for failing to faithfully execute the law then the president cannot discharge his duties. Thus any law in opposition to that is facially unconstitutional
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Yes so let’s get upset if in the future they don’t do Y. Not upset they are stopping Z
zeke5123a
6mo ago
You seem to be giving into unfounded fears. The bureaucratic state isn’t what stops Trump from having all of this power.
Also the president absolutely can stop funding for an agency without congressional action and is probably required to do so. Again let’s say Congress said “50b to USAOD to accomplish Y.” But USAID spent it to accomplish Z. The president would actually be failing his required duty by not stopping USAID from spending on Z. Full stop. And if you determine the people in that agency are lawless then you need to fire them.
If the president then later on fails to take steps to put people into the agency to accomplish Y then he also failed his duty. But that’s a future issue. Right now he is acting within those safe guards.
Re birthright citizenship I think you are probably right but the president’s position is colorable (even Richard Posner seems to think the better view is the constitution doesn’t require birthright citizenship). There is a difference between taking a position that may not be correct and doing something that is obviously incorrect.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Ehh I think you need to look closer into the precedent. Do I think Trump Has the better argument? No. But you don’t actually need to overturn precedent to come to Trump’s conclusion.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
I don’t fuck with pointless hypos—yes if Trump had all of the power he would probably use it. Few men wouldn’t.
But explain how you think curtailing the power of the admin state is akin to DACA.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
That was one of the most absurd rulings — sure it might be illegal but the president saying he won’t enact a program because he think it’s illegal is not sufficient to stop a purely EO.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
I think this is all a confusion in category. Yes Trump is muscular. Yes Obama was muscular. But they were muscular in different directions meaning they are not the same. And I don’t mean in different policy directions (though that’s certainly the case) but constitutionally.
Obama used his executive power to trample Congress (eg DACA, DCL re Title IX). Trump in contrast is targeting the illegal fourth branch of government. Whilst this increases the power of the presidency it also will increase the power of Congress.
Treating them as the same is making a fundamental category error.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
I am mostly with you except it isn’t clear to me it makes sense to vaccinate during a wave because that encourages vaccine resistant viruses ie original anti genetic sin.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
No there is a difference in kind. DACA is an example of the imperial presidency. There is clear law on the matter. Obama created a new system diametrically opposed to the law.
In contrast, Trump is trying to rein in the unaccountable bureaucracy in a way that can square with congressional delegates (see my above comment to anon_).
That is, just because Trump and Obama both aggressively used the power of the president doesn’t mean they are the same thing. There are important differences that make them different in kind. So your analysis rests on a faulty assumption that the actions are similar.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Congress says spend X dollars to achieve Y. USAID spends X dollars to achieve Z. Trump would faithfully be executing the laws to impound the spending by USAID since they conflict with Congressional commands.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
One could think of the check on states as the faction response in Federalist #10. Sure one state could be dominated by an executive and another by the legislature. But if one outperforms the other people will move to that other state. That is, competition between states ought to lead to good outcomes.
Of course this presupposes easy population movement which is somewhat sticky in practice.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
I think the president has a constitutional duty to ensure the laws are being properly enforced by the admin state and therefore any law that limits his ability to provide oversight infringes on a core constitutional power of the president. I have wholly bought into the Scalia dissent in Morrison.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
You cited credentials. Are they worth a damn or just a signal that for example Lloyd played politics really well? I think the primary goal with Hegseth was to pick someone far away from the blob. Necessarily that meant picking someone who doesn’t have the credentials but hopefully has innate competency.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
Directly? No. The anti DEI EO can be used by Duffy to correct the problem. The problem is that it will take years to affect change. It also seems clear that Duffy is going to work with DOGE to technological improve ATC. Curious to see how that affects the industry.
zeke5123a
6mo ago
I think this is key why Trump is trying to fire people at USAID contrary to the claims made below that he needs to do this through statute. I think one of the people At USAId also happened to have a role at Reddit. They are clearly interconnected. You kill the funding and you might kill the astroturf.
Also podcasts are key—Vance should be on a major podcast once every week or two breaking it down for everyone. He is a superb communicator and generally thoughtful. You can bypass the Reddit blob or the news blob and go straight to the people. Those people can then turnkey that to other people.
Re the first point it wasn’t just USAID but the amount of money the Biden admin shoveled towards US media was not insignificant. For example I think Politico received about 5% of its revenue from the US government. Are you telling me that can’t buy positive coverage or at least limit negative coverage?
Re Chevron the amount of cases where the court found the statute unambiguous or the agency interpretation unreasonable was tiny. In effect, there was no check.
More options
Context Copy link