President Trump

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yes. Deadly serious.

It might not go from Putin’s Checking Account to Trump’s Checking Account, but it’ll get there.

Thanks for explaining how that might work.

 

[Blue and true]

Just think you are deliberately derailing it for laughs and giggles

He's an apologist for a fascist narcissist. Pay him the heed he deserves.

Just ignore the prick, that's what I do.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

My goodness. Yes, just coz actions can be predicted with accuracy in some scenarios doesn't mean that's what is going on here.

What we have here are doon and gloom merchants hoping for the worst coz they don't like the person in office.

That's not using ones reasoning faculties. Just wishful thinking.

I have to say Dax, speaking solely for myself, I find that answer totally disingenuous.
I thought firstly, that flook’s analogy was quite accurate.
People are not predicting doom and gloom because they don’t like Trump, but because they don’t like what they see him doing and saying in one month of government.

It is far from wishful thinking that any of us, myself included included, hope we are right.

Personally I’ve been careful not to predict any definite outcome as, as I’ve said countless times as well, I have no way of knowing how things will work out with the American public, with congress, with your judiciary,…
But from what I’ve seen and heard from Trump and co. I definitely have built up a picture of where he would like things to go.

Forecasts go on the evidence at hand. People in here, to use a court term, are doing no more than asking themselves have they seen anything from him that presents your view of him and things in general as the most likely, beyond reasonable doubt.

You don’t see that and seem to try and undermine our independent thinking without seemingly contemplating reasonable doubt yourself.

This of course is my analysis of what I see in here and of course from Trump.
Of course I could be wrong, about Him and about you, but neither him nor you are doing anything to convince me I’m wrong.

Honestly doesn’t matter if I’m wrong about you. But it is disingenuous of you, as I’ve said, to think I’m hoping to be right about him.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Who said Ukraine started the war?

To quote you, ‘lol’.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I think TMT has adequately demonstrated a precedent whereby "using ones reasoning faculties" might perhaps suggest waiting for it to happen could result in the ship capsizing

What’s the weather like next week,flook?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Yes. Deadly serious.

It might not go from Putin’s Checking Account to Trump’s Checking Account, but it’ll get there.

Money laundering, like those $100,000 'Crypto President Tour Billion' watches that he's hawking on his website

Only 10 made. Worth a fraction of the price, but no doubt some well-connected Russian oligarch will have one or two of them knocking around in a junk drawer somewhere.

 

[Vic]

A statement of “fact” followed by a believe…a likely…and a possibly.

OOOOOOKKKKKKKK….

Yeah, but under US libel laws wouldn't Trump have to prove he isn't compromised?

 

[Username Required]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...

In 1926, Chief Justice and former President William Taft addressed the President’s removal power in Myers v. United States, holding that the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers. Myers concerned a law that required the Senate’s advice and consent for the President to remove a Postmaster from office. In a 6-3 decision for the President, Chief Justice Taft reasoned that the removal power was necessary for the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Absent power to hold subordinate Executive Branch officers accountable by removing them if necessary, the President would not be able to fulfill his obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Holding the removal power to be constitutionally vested in the President the Myers Court observed that powers vested in Congress must be strictly construed in favor of powers retained by the President.

Notwithstanding Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison, the Court later clarified that the President’s removal power is the rule rather than the exception. In its 2010 decision, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board, the Court held unconstitutional a statute that structured a government office to restrict the President’s ability to remove a principal officer and also restrict the principal officer’s ability to remove an inferior officer who determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States. The Court explained: The President cannot ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if he cannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them. Here the President cannot remove an officer who enjoys more than one level of good-cause protection, even if the President determines that the officer is neglecting his duties or discharging them improperly.

In its 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), the Court rejected the proposition that Humphrey’s Executor establish a general rule that Congress may impose ‘modest’ restrictions on the President’s removal power. Examining the CFPB, the Court noted that it had a single Director, who was insulated from the President’s removal power and accountable to no one. Describing the President’s role in the constitutional structure as the link that makes the administrative state answerable to the people, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:

The resulting constitutional strategy is straightforward: divide power everywhere except for the Presidency, and render the President directly accountable to the people through regular elections. In that scheme, individual executive officials will still wield significant authority, but that authority remains subject to the ongoing supervison and control of the elected President. Through the President’s oversight, the chain of dependence [is] preserved, so that the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest all depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.

Finding the CFPB Director’s protection from removal to be unconstitutional, the Court stated: In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.

In Bowsher v. Synar the Court held that Congress had unconstitutionally vested executive functions in a Legislative Branch official through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act....The Court stated: Interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law. Because Congress could remove the Comptroller General from office, it could not delegate executive powers to him. The Court stated: By placing the responsibility for execution of the [Act] in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the the executive function.

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court held that Congress could not legislate to grant citizens not suffering particularized injuries standing to sue the federal government to compel its compliance with congressional mandates. Such a law, the Court reasoned, would allow Congress to transfer the President’s Take Care Clause duty to the Judiciary.

The Court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) in which the Court held that Congress encroached on Executive Branch powers when it limited the President’s ability to remove the head of an independent agency to for cause removal. In Seila, the Court noted that Congress had vest[ed] significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one. Similarly, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court ruled that Congress could not restrict the President’s authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which had a structure similar to the CFPB.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

The likelihood of a new Hitlerian figure is much more likely in Europe than it is here. So i suggest you pay closer attention to your backyard.

With just the right level of meddling from outside, you may well be right, unfortunately.
Now if there was only foreign backing for such nefarious and devious behaviour.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

If so, the new European version is going to have to catch up in a hurry!!!

He/They will be hand picked no doubt.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...

In 1926, Chief Justice and former President William Taft addressed the President’s removal power in Myers v. United States, holding that the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers. Myers concerned a law that required the Senate’s advice and consent for the President to remove a Postmaster from office. In a 6-3 decision for the President, Chief Justice Taft reasoned that the removal power was necessary for the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Absent power to hold subordinate Executive Branch officers accountable by removing them if necessary, the President would not be able to fulfill his obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Holding the removal power to be constitutionally vested in the President the Myers Court observed that powers vested in Congress must be strictly construed in favor of powers retained by the President.

Notwithstanding Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison, the Court later clarified that the President’s removal power is the rule rather than the exception. In its 2010 decision, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board, the Court held unconstitutional a statute that structured a government office to restrict the President’s ability to remove a principal officer and also restrict the principal officer’s ability to remove an inferior officer who determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States. The Court explained: The President cannot ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if he cannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them. Here the President cannot remove an officer who enjoys more than one level of good-cause protection, even if the President determines that the officer is neglecting his duties or discharging them improperly.

In its 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), the Court rejected the proposition that Humphrey’s Executor establish a general rule that Congress may impose ‘modest’ restrictions on the President’s removal power. Examining the CFPB, the Court noted that it had a single Director, who was insulated from the President’s removal power and accountable to no one. Describing the President’s role in the constitutional structure as the link that makes the administrative state answerable to the people, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:



Finding the CFPB Director’s protection from removal to be unconstitutional, the Court stated: In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.

In Bowsher v. Synar the Court held that Congress had unconstitutionally vested executive functions in a Legislative Branch official through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act....The Court stated: Interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law. Because Congress could remove the Comptroller General from office, it could not delegate executive powers to him. The Court stated: By placing the responsibility for execution of the [Act] in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the the executive function.

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court held that Congress could not legislate to grant citizens not suffering particularized injuries standing to sue the federal government to compel its compliance with congressional mandates. Such a law, the Court reasoned, would allow Congress to transfer the President’s Take Care Clause duty to the Judiciary.

The Court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) in which the Court held that Congress encroached on Executive Branch powers when it limited the President’s ability to remove the head of an independent agency to for cause removal. In Seila, the Court noted that Congress had vest[ed] significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one. Similarly, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court ruled that Congress could not restrict the President’s authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which had a structure similar to the CFPB.

Are you arguing that the President is a King, because I'm pretty sure the current political structure of the USA exists for precisely the opposite reason?

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...

In 1926, Chief Justice and former President William Taft addressed the President’s removal power in Myers v. United States, holding that the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers. Myers concerned a law that required the Senate’s advice and consent for the President to remove a Postmaster from office. In a 6-3 decision for the President, Chief Justice Taft reasoned that the removal power was necessary for the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Absent power to hold subordinate Executive Branch officers accountable by removing them if necessary, the President would not be able to fulfill his obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Holding the removal power to be constitutionally vested in the President the Myers Court observed that powers vested in Congress must be strictly construed in favor of powers retained by the President.

Notwithstanding Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison, the Court later clarified that the President’s removal power is the rule rather than the exception. In its 2010 decision, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board, the Court held unconstitutional a statute that structured a government office to restrict the President’s ability to remove a principal officer and also restrict the principal officer’s ability to remove an inferior officer who determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States. The Court explained: The President cannot ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if he cannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them. Here the President cannot remove an officer who enjoys more than one level of good-cause protection, even if the President determines that the officer is neglecting his duties or discharging them improperly.

In its 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), the Court rejected the proposition that Humphrey’s Executor establish a general rule that Congress may impose ‘modest’ restrictions on the President’s removal power. Examining the CFPB, the Court noted that it had a single Director, who was insulated from the President’s removal power and accountable to no one. Describing the President’s role in the constitutional structure as the link that makes the administrative state answerable to the people, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:



Finding the CFPB Director’s protection from removal to be unconstitutional, the Court stated: In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.

In Bowsher v. Synar the Court held that Congress had unconstitutionally vested executive functions in a Legislative Branch official through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act....The Court stated: Interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law. Because Congress could remove the Comptroller General from office, it could not delegate executive powers to him. The Court stated: By placing the responsibility for execution of the [Act] in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the the executive function.

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court held that Congress could not legislate to grant citizens not suffering particularized injuries standing to sue the federal government to compel its compliance with congressional mandates. Such a law, the Court reasoned, would allow Congress to transfer the President’s Take Care Clause duty to the Judiciary.

The Court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) in which the Court held that Congress encroached on Executive Branch powers when it limited the President’s ability to remove the head of an independent agency to for cause removal. In Seila, the Court noted that Congress had vest[ed] significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one. Similarly, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court ruled that Congress could not restrict the President’s authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which had a structure similar to the CFPB.

You have been crit by wall of text and take 4 - D20 damage.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Don't suppose you are thinking of taking 24hrs off this thread are you?

Some people have far too much time on their hands.

 

[KS55]

Agreed he is unlikely to hold them in contempt. Bur i also doubt he'd be requiring they demonstrate to him that all the projects they claim are suspend-able, in fact are. That will be him overstepping the bounds of his jurisdiction.

Which again, was the problem with lots of these cases all along. What those bringing the case want cannot be granted by the judge without overstepping his jurisdiction.

It is within the evidence already given, not therefore outside jurisdiction. The gov side introduced it.

 

[Username Required]

Are you arguing that the President is a King, because I'm pretty sure the current political structure of the USA exists for precisely the opposite reason?

I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply posting an antidote to the sky screaming about the limits to executive power granted by the Supreme Law and explained by a series of Supreme Courts. Who the POTUS is is wholly irrelevant. It's not personal.

"We don't like Trump's actions vis-a-vis Sir Humphrey Appleby so lets all pretend the structure of the Constitution and text and precedence is something other than what it is and always has been."

Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

www.whitehouse.gov

In the exercise of their often-considerable authority, these executive branch officials remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision and control. The President in turn is regularly elected by and accountable to the American people. This is one of the structural safeguards, along with the separation of powers...

...previous administrations have allowed so-called “independent regulatory agencies” to operate with minimal Presidential supervision. These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people. Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President. 

These practices undermine such regulatory agencies’ accountability to the American people and prevent a unified and coherent execution of Federal law.

^^^^This language clearly indicates that whatever Trump lawyer drafted this, they are not as a-historically stupid as the left would like to believe.

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

www.washingtontimes.com

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary and one of the president’s attorneys, said the order that limits only the president and attorney general to interpret laws “reestablishes a long-standing norm” in the U.S.

Contrary to what was claimed in left-wing social media posts, the order only confers on the president and attorney general the authority to interpret matters of law for agencies within the executive branch. The order says those federal agencies must not "advance an interpretation of the law" that "contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law." This does not apply to the legislative or judicial branches of government.

I'm not going to continue posting about this.

I think the Robert's court is going to have to agree with Sarah M. Harris acting Solicitor General that "This Court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will," re the Hampton Dilling case.

In SEILA LAW LLC v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 2020 which was cited in my first post, SCOTUS found that -
“Under our Constitution, the executive power — all of it — is vested in a president,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in 2020. And that includes the president’s nearly “unrestricted removal power” of officials throughout the government, he said.

Is Trump pushing his presidential powers beyond what the Constitution allows?

Trump is likely to succeed in expanding presidential powers on some fronts because the Constitution generally puts vast power in the hands of the president.

www.latimes.com

How nearly is nearly?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

A statement of “fact” followed by a believe…a likely…and a possibly.

OOOOOOKKKKKKKK….

Well, for a start even if it is money then he's compromised. Someone taking money off the books from a foreign adversary wouldn't even be entertained for a basic level of security clearance let alone be given the nuclear codes. Him being compromised is beyond doubt.

I merely stated I believe he's compromise beyond money. He's had plenty of opportunities over the years from his numerous trips to Russia to fall foul of the classic Russian honey trap, and given the way he speaks when he thinks nobody is listening (Access Hollywood tapes as a prime example), I'd wager there was more than the odd recording in existence of him incriminating himself in some way.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I'd wager there was more than the odd recording in existence of him incriminating himself in some way.

That's possible.

Yet Trump's behavior is entirely consistent with his personality and mindset: Trump is a bully and admires other bullies. There's no need of kompromat to explain Trump's actions.

 

[Dax777]

[

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...

In 1926, Chief Justice and former President William Taft addressed the President’s removal power in Myers v. United States, holding that the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers. Myers concerned a law that required the Senate’s advice and consent for the President to remove a Postmaster from office. In a 6-3 decision for the President, Chief Justice Taft reasoned that the removal power was necessary for the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Absent power to hold subordinate Executive Branch officers accountable by removing them if necessary, the President would not be able to fulfill his obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Holding the removal power to be constitutionally vested in the President the Myers Court observed that powers vested in Congress must be strictly construed in favor of powers retained by the President.

Notwithstanding Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison, the Court later clarified that the President’s removal power is the rule rather than the exception. In its 2010 decision, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board, the Court held unconstitutional a statute that structured a government office to restrict the President’s ability to remove a principal officer and also restrict the principal officer’s ability to remove an inferior officer who determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States. The Court explained: The President cannot ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if he cannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them. Here the President cannot remove an officer who enjoys more than one level of good-cause protection, even if the President determines that the officer is neglecting his duties or discharging them improperly.

In its 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), the Court rejected the proposition that Humphrey’s Executor establish a general rule that Congress may impose ‘modest’ restrictions on the President’s removal power. Examining the CFPB, the Court noted that it had a single Director, who was insulated from the President’s removal power and accountable to no one. Describing the President’s role in the constitutional structure as the link that makes the administrative state answerable to the people, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:



Finding the CFPB Director’s protection from removal to be unconstitutional, the Court stated: In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.

In Bowsher v. Synar the Court held that Congress had unconstitutionally vested executive functions in a Legislative Branch official through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act....The Court stated: Interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law. Because Congress could remove the Comptroller General from office, it could not delegate executive powers to him. The Court stated: By placing the responsibility for execution of the [Act] in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the the executive function.

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court held that Congress could not legislate to grant citizens not suffering particularized injuries standing to sue the federal government to compel its compliance with congressional mandates. Such a law, the Court reasoned, would allow Congress to transfer the President’s Take Care Clause duty to the Judiciary.

The Court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) in which the Court held that Congress encroached on Executive Branch powers when it limited the President’s ability to remove the head of an independent agency to for cause removal. In Seila, the Court noted that Congress had vest[ed] significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one. Similarly, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court ruled that Congress could not restrict the President’s authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which had a structure similar to the CFPB.

You are damper on the fantasy of many here.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply posting an antidote to the sky screaming about the limits to executive power granted by the Supreme Law and explained by a series of Supreme Courts. Who the POTUS is is wholly irrelevant. It's not personal.

"We don't like Trump's actions vis-a-vis Sir Humphrey Appleby so lets all pretend the structure of the Constitution and text and precedence is something other than what it is and always has been."

Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

www.whitehouse.gov

In the exercise of their often-considerable authority, these executive branch officials remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision and control. The President in turn is regularly elected by and accountable to the American people. This is one of the structural safeguards, along with the separation of powers...

...previous administrations have allowed so-called “independent regulatory agencies” to operate with minimal Presidential supervision. These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people. Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President. 

These practices undermine such regulatory agencies’ accountability to the American people and prevent a unified and coherent execution of Federal law.

^^^^This language clearly indicates that whatever Trump lawyer drafted this, they are not as a-historically stupid as the left would like to believe.

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

www.washingtontimes.com

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary and one of the president’s attorneys, said the order that limits only the president and attorney general to interpret laws “reestablishes a long-standing norm” in the U.S.

Contrary to what was claimed in left-wing social media posts, the order only confers on the president and attorney general the authority to interpret matters of law for agencies within the executive branch. The order says those federal agencies must not "advance an interpretation of the law" that "contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law." This does not apply to the legislative or judicial branches of government.

I'm not going to continue posting about this.

I think the Robert's court is going to have to agree with Sarah M. Harris acting Solicitor General that "This Court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will," re the Hampton Dilling case.

In SEILA LAW LLC v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 2020 which was cited in my first post, SCOTUS found that -
“Under our Constitution, the executive power — all of it — is vested in a president,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in 2020. And that includes the president’s nearly “unrestricted removal power” of officials throughout the government, he said.

Is Trump pushing his presidential powers beyond what the Constitution allows?

Trump is likely to succeed in expanding presidential powers on some fronts because the Constitution generally puts vast power in the hands of the president.

www.latimes.com

How nearly is nearly?

Brevity is the soul of... well, nevermind.

 

[babyape]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...

In 1926, Chief Justice and former President William Taft addressed the President’s removal power in Myers v. United States, holding that the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers. Myers concerned a law that required the Senate’s advice and consent for the President to remove a Postmaster from office. In a 6-3 decision for the President, Chief Justice Taft reasoned that the removal power was necessary for the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Absent power to hold subordinate Executive Branch officers accountable by removing them if necessary, the President would not be able to fulfill his obligation to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Holding the removal power to be constitutionally vested in the President the Myers Court observed that powers vested in Congress must be strictly construed in favor of powers retained by the President.

Notwithstanding Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison, the Court later clarified that the President’s removal power is the rule rather than the exception. In its 2010 decision, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board, the Court held unconstitutional a statute that structured a government office to restrict the President’s ability to remove a principal officer and also restrict the principal officer’s ability to remove an inferior officer who determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States. The Court explained: The President cannot ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if he cannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them. Here the President cannot remove an officer who enjoys more than one level of good-cause protection, even if the President determines that the officer is neglecting his duties or discharging them improperly.

In its 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), the Court rejected the proposition that Humphrey’s Executor establish a general rule that Congress may impose ‘modest’ restrictions on the President’s removal power. Examining the CFPB, the Court noted that it had a single Director, who was insulated from the President’s removal power and accountable to no one. Describing the President’s role in the constitutional structure as the link that makes the administrative state answerable to the people, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:



Finding the CFPB Director’s protection from removal to be unconstitutional, the Court stated: In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the President, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.

In Bowsher v. Synar the Court held that Congress had unconstitutionally vested executive functions in a Legislative Branch official through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act....The Court stated: Interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law. Because Congress could remove the Comptroller General from office, it could not delegate executive powers to him. The Court stated: By placing the responsibility for execution of the [Act] in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the the executive function.

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court held that Congress could not legislate to grant citizens not suffering particularized injuries standing to sue the federal government to compel its compliance with congressional mandates. Such a law, the Court reasoned, would allow Congress to transfer the President’s Take Care Clause duty to the Judiciary.

The Court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) in which the Court held that Congress encroached on Executive Branch powers when it limited the President’s ability to remove the head of an independent agency to for cause removal. In Seila, the Court noted that Congress had vest[ed] significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one. Similarly, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court ruled that Congress could not restrict the President’s authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which had a structure similar to the CFPB.

The copy and paste buttons on your keyboard must be absolutely goosed by now. Christ.