This is a great thought. An additional idea to reduce the harm from the loss of independent agencies is to turn agency rules into law, so that partisan agencies don’t have the ability to change the law through rule changes. I know it is so very hard for Congress to pass laws with the detail and expertise required for rules, but they just have to do it.
Given the principles laid down in Slaughter, how would the quorum requirements not be subject to the same "the president doesn't have to work with anybody he disagrees with" that allows him to fire any agency head for any reason?
I think Congress is on more solid ground if they promptly strip funding from agencies where the executive branch has arbitrarily fired people. It may cause harm if say, the EPA can no longer function, but it could be preferable to a malignant EPA run by the president's minions, deciding that solar panels and windmills must be torn down because of their harm to the environment.
I'm uncomfortable with writing anything into law about political parties. Among other things, membership in a political party is entirely voluntary; what's to stop several of the President's favored nominees from simply changing their voter registration to Democratic so they satisfy the "bipartisan" quorum requirement?
Passing this bill assumes that the crypto industry wants ANY regulation. At all. And won't spend millions in lobbying effort and campaign/PAC donations to kill it. I'm not holding my breath.
This is an unconstitutional ruling, period. Article II, Section 2 states that his powers extend to:
"he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices"
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"
That's it. The SCOTUS has no authority to grant powers not provided by the constitution and as the constitution does not provide the president the power to fire he has none. Of course there is law passed by congress and the president, but that cannot extend powers either, the SCOTUS has the function to ensure that such comport with the constitution, which of course this criminal court sees fit to ignore as they did in Dobbs as they have no authority to rule on rights, only law and equity as per Article III, Section 2.
Future courts will have to overrule these unconstitutional rulings of the illegitimate, corrupt and criminal Roberts court.
This Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution and Amendments. Rather, it seems to be guided by doctrines developed by the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society. The goal of those organizations seems to be turning the Presidency into an authoritarian position. The SC sometimes makes decisions based on the Constitution. Just as commonly, they seem to arrive at opinions that are not supported by Constitution and frequently appear to be made of whole cloth.
This Supreme Court follows the strict text of the constitution unless it would lead to a result they don’t like. Then the Constitution becomes a living document which can be interpreted contrary to its text according to whatever the Court says was the intent of its drafters.
The idea that mandating bipartisan commission members is a solution to anything feels like a fantasy to me.
The concept of a president of one party appointing (or accepting) members of an opposing party to leadership positions assumes a bedrock level of good faith, which hasn't existed since 2016.
Does anything think Trump would balk at the idea of having people he wants to appoint be registered as Independents (or even straight-up having them register as Democrats)? It's not like anyone has to certify that someone's beliefs match the party they're putatively a member of.
As you wrote: "The president may certainly fire commissioners as the Supreme Court has permitted, but doing so in a way that breaks the quorum will simply prevent the agency from acting until the Senate confirms replacements." This is very logical but you only need look to what Trump did to the Federal Election Commission to understand that having a group that cannot act is precisely what Trump wants.
Likewise, one can imagine a clause in the law that says if a commissioner is fired without cause, the agency's budget will be immediately cut (under Congress's funding authority) in proportion to the number of such commissioners, until a Senate-confirmed replacement takes office. But if your goal is to prevent government agencies from functioning, defunding them and blaming the other side is exactly what you want.
This was my thought exactly. While a fairly elegant proposal which makes sense to those of us who believe in good governance, that is not Trump or the Republican Party we have. Good governance and continuity are not their goals. They would likely be happy to hamstring the agencies and have then do nothing at which point they become irrelevant and the expertise goes elsewhere or only function when Democratic presidents control the administration, but again have no continuity in their execution of their mandates over time. The real problem here is that the Republican Party from Roberts on down does not believe in good governance or governmental stability over administrations. Without the Republican aide believing in the importance of governance and governmental stability where you can know what the administrative, regulatory state will look like over time it makes it longterm planning impossible. Until that piece gets fixed, good luck.
Please keep us updated on this issue. It seems worthy of future conversation, and we should know about it. I wouldn't depend on the media to keep us informed. On another topic, on a media outlet I happen to like and trust, a couple of the commentators have a predictable comment to far too many pieces of information from interviewees. That comment is an emphatic "hummm." Can't they do better than that? Maybe I'm not the only one who has noticed this.
I really appreciate the tone and information in this article, and I’m very happy to hear of anything that might serve as a possible “speed bump” against the evil that the Roberts court has enabled with their Slaughter decision.
The way this article is written provides specific language for me to use when I call my 2 GOP senators about the CLARITY act. Knowing that a senate vote is likely coming in the next few weeks and potential advantages to Republicans that I can articulate during my call is very helpful.
Usually, phoning my GOP senators to encourage them to do the right thing for the country feels completely pointless.
Maybe this is an OK solution. But first, the next Democratic president should fire every Republican member of every commission and agency across the entire federal government. And every person hired by the DOJ during Trump's term, political appointment or not. And every single ICE agent who put on a mask even once. And maybe more. Just because.
Seems a bit of a reach to expect any of this to come out of the current Congress. We need to be on our knees every day praying for a change in 2026 election. Only voting and election integrity will make that possible. As a country with the right to vote supposedly enshrined we have a very poor turnout for elections.
Creative, yes. But there are lots of things Congress *could* do rein in executive power (among other things). The question is -- will they? Color me skeptical
This is a great thought. An additional idea to reduce the harm from the loss of independent agencies is to turn agency rules into law, so that partisan agencies don’t have the ability to change the law through rule changes. I know it is so very hard for Congress to pass laws with the detail and expertise required for rules, but they just have to do it.
Given the principles laid down in Slaughter, how would the quorum requirements not be subject to the same "the president doesn't have to work with anybody he disagrees with" that allows him to fire any agency head for any reason?
I think Congress is on more solid ground if they promptly strip funding from agencies where the executive branch has arbitrarily fired people. It may cause harm if say, the EPA can no longer function, but it could be preferable to a malignant EPA run by the president's minions, deciding that solar panels and windmills must be torn down because of their harm to the environment.
I'm uncomfortable with writing anything into law about political parties. Among other things, membership in a political party is entirely voluntary; what's to stop several of the President's favored nominees from simply changing their voter registration to Democratic so they satisfy the "bipartisan" quorum requirement?
Passing this bill assumes that the crypto industry wants ANY regulation. At all. And won't spend millions in lobbying effort and campaign/PAC donations to kill it. I'm not holding my breath.
Actually, the crypto industry DOES want regulation at the Federal level, in order to supersede and prevent regulation at the state level.
But yes, it will spend millions in lobbying and donations to prevent any regulation that impedes its (and the Trump family's) ability to make money.
This is an unconstitutional ruling, period. Article II, Section 2 states that his powers extend to:
"he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices"
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"
That's it. The SCOTUS has no authority to grant powers not provided by the constitution and as the constitution does not provide the president the power to fire he has none. Of course there is law passed by congress and the president, but that cannot extend powers either, the SCOTUS has the function to ensure that such comport with the constitution, which of course this criminal court sees fit to ignore as they did in Dobbs as they have no authority to rule on rights, only law and equity as per Article III, Section 2.
Future courts will have to overrule these unconstitutional rulings of the illegitimate, corrupt and criminal Roberts court.
This Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution and Amendments. Rather, it seems to be guided by doctrines developed by the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society. The goal of those organizations seems to be turning the Presidency into an authoritarian position. The SC sometimes makes decisions based on the Constitution. Just as commonly, they seem to arrive at opinions that are not supported by Constitution and frequently appear to be made of whole cloth.
This Supreme Court follows the strict text of the constitution unless it would lead to a result they don’t like. Then the Constitution becomes a living document which can be interpreted contrary to its text according to whatever the Court says was the intent of its drafters.
The idea that mandating bipartisan commission members is a solution to anything feels like a fantasy to me.
The concept of a president of one party appointing (or accepting) members of an opposing party to leadership positions assumes a bedrock level of good faith, which hasn't existed since 2016.
Does anything think Trump would balk at the idea of having people he wants to appoint be registered as Independents (or even straight-up having them register as Democrats)? It's not like anyone has to certify that someone's beliefs match the party they're putatively a member of.
As you wrote: "The president may certainly fire commissioners as the Supreme Court has permitted, but doing so in a way that breaks the quorum will simply prevent the agency from acting until the Senate confirms replacements." This is very logical but you only need look to what Trump did to the Federal Election Commission to understand that having a group that cannot act is precisely what Trump wants.
Likewise, one can imagine a clause in the law that says if a commissioner is fired without cause, the agency's budget will be immediately cut (under Congress's funding authority) in proportion to the number of such commissioners, until a Senate-confirmed replacement takes office. But if your goal is to prevent government agencies from functioning, defunding them and blaming the other side is exactly what you want.
This was my thought exactly. While a fairly elegant proposal which makes sense to those of us who believe in good governance, that is not Trump or the Republican Party we have. Good governance and continuity are not their goals. They would likely be happy to hamstring the agencies and have then do nothing at which point they become irrelevant and the expertise goes elsewhere or only function when Democratic presidents control the administration, but again have no continuity in their execution of their mandates over time. The real problem here is that the Republican Party from Roberts on down does not believe in good governance or governmental stability over administrations. Without the Republican aide believing in the importance of governance and governmental stability where you can know what the administrative, regulatory state will look like over time it makes it longterm planning impossible. Until that piece gets fixed, good luck.
Please keep us updated on this issue. It seems worthy of future conversation, and we should know about it. I wouldn't depend on the media to keep us informed. On another topic, on a media outlet I happen to like and trust, a couple of the commentators have a predictable comment to far too many pieces of information from interviewees. That comment is an emphatic "hummm." Can't they do better than that? Maybe I'm not the only one who has noticed this.
I really appreciate the tone and information in this article, and I’m very happy to hear of anything that might serve as a possible “speed bump” against the evil that the Roberts court has enabled with their Slaughter decision.
The way this article is written provides specific language for me to use when I call my 2 GOP senators about the CLARITY act. Knowing that a senate vote is likely coming in the next few weeks and potential advantages to Republicans that I can articulate during my call is very helpful.
Usually, phoning my GOP senators to encourage them to do the right thing for the country feels completely pointless.
A 1946 law requires that all administrative agencies must comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Maybe this is an OK solution. But first, the next Democratic president should fire every Republican member of every commission and agency across the entire federal government. And every person hired by the DOJ during Trump's term, political appointment or not. And every single ICE agent who put on a mask even once. And maybe more. Just because.
Seems a bit of a reach to expect any of this to come out of the current Congress. We need to be on our knees every day praying for a change in 2026 election. Only voting and election integrity will make that possible. As a country with the right to vote supposedly enshrined we have a very poor turnout for elections.
Creative, yes. But there are lots of things Congress *could* do rein in executive power (among other things). The question is -- will they? Color me skeptical
Agree 100%. Congress is broken.