Musk appears at White House defending DOGE's work but acknowledging mistakes
apnews.com
apnews.com
It's hard not to think that with this administration when they talk about fraud and misuse of funds ... they're just telling us what they intend to do ...
Piling on the above, Musk's verbal diarrhea makes it even worse. He downplays the role of DOGE, saying he's stopping 150 year old Social Security collectors, when in reality he's shutting down critical government functions on the daily ("XX agency: R.I.P.").
"We post our activity on X! And the DOGE website." Because now X is totally a valid outlet for government activity.. </s>, gross.
It's all one big lie, and the rest of the government has apparently been capitulated, resistance is futile. What does the ending look like in this case?
That comment by @tomrod the other day, a list of sane questions, is still becoming more relevant, IMHO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003791
Much of our system relies on people acting in accordance to precedent and within certain established norms. What Elon is doing is way outside those norms. The system is not set up for this type of power to be concentrated in one person who operates outside Congressional oversight. And it appears increasingly likely that he will operate without judicial oversight too.
I like how George W. Bush’s ethics counsel put it.
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/elon-musk-trump-go...
No need for the 'you should carefully reread' snark. Not only am I the OP—but I've also passed a bar exam in my lifetime, which preparation included careful US constitutional law study.
Was it administered by the same bar association that believes what DOGE is doing is illegal and unconstitutional [1]?
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american-bar-association-trum...
"The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well."I agree 100% that adherence to the rule of law is what separates the United States, Canada, most of Europe, and Oceania from pretty much the rest of the world.
But I don't see anything in the entirety of Mr. Bay's statement that's otherwise relevant to this discussion. Certainly nothing about Elon Musk nor "what DOGE is doing [being] illegal and unconstitutional" like you've claimed.
Just because it has no precedence does not unconstitutional it make.
Of course not. I did not say or imply otherwise. I said much of our system relies on following political norms. For example, it would have been perfectly Constitional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices. Such a constitutionally valid move would have had very bad implications.
"[The POTUS] shall have Power [ . . ] and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [ . . . ] all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."[1]
Nor has Congress bestowed upon the POTUS the exclusive authority to nominate and appoint whatever Elon's position is without their advice and conset. That's what the after-the-colon part is all about: whether or not the appointment of any "such inferior Officer"[3] whose position is not otherwise expressly provided for (like Elon's) is vested by an act of Congress in the POTUS not requiring their advice and consent—not whether or not any such position is actually 'established by Congress' as you say. That's exactly the point: Congress derives no appointment power from the Appointments Clause. Their role is limited to providing either constitutionally-required advice and consent, or vesting a direct appointment power not requiring their advice and consent in the POTUS.
That being said, if the executive branch does something novel, like create and appoint thereto a position (or even an entire department) that didn't exist previously, then certainly that act may be ripe for constitutional challenge under the Appointments Clause. That is squarely one of the primary constiutional issues with what Elon and DOGE are doing, and that would be squarely for the SCOTUS to interpret.
Just curious since I don't think I've heard this argument before—from where in the Constitution do you interpret that "it would have been perfectly Constitutional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices"?
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#ar...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause#Appointmen...
From Wikipedia:
Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as this did not meet the constitutional requirement for their cases to be "tried by the Senate". Several impeached judges, including District Court Judge Walter Nixon, sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds. In Nixon v. United States (1993),[18] the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary could not review such proceedings, as matters related to impeachment trials are political questions and could not be resolved in the courts.[19]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
Whatver the case there is no precedent for what is happening right now. The political norms have been upended and what is being done is contrary to how a large majority of people believe things are supposed to work. A new normal is being established and it is not a good thing. This is very unhealthy for the republic. Congressional power is being greatly limited and Presidential power greatly expanded. This is quite bad.
I begin to suspect you are being deliberately obtuse. I gave an example of something that is legal and Constitutional that Congress could do (remove all Supreme Court justices) that would totally upend the political norms of the country. It would cause a crisis.
Whether you can come up with a plausible legal justification for what Musk and Trump are doing is irrelevant. The previously understood balance of power has been upended. The crisis exists now. Congress has authorized spending that a President signed off on and now a new President is taking it upon himself via his designee to change that spending as he sees fit. This is very bad. This is not how things are supposed to work.
Congress has not vested the President to appoint someone the power to do what Musk and his minions are doing.
Again... Congress doesn't decide what a so-called inferior officer has the "power to do"—merely whether the POTUS has the power to appoint said person without their advice and consent. The POTUS decides what its subordinates have the power to do. The check to such an exercise of executive power belongs to the judicial branch by way of legal challenge before a federal judge up to and including the SCOTUS.
Hmmm... now why is that?
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
It was easy to convince millions of people that they shouldn’t vaccinate their kids. Such idiots can easily be convinced of anything.
The federal government has no mechanism for removing bad agencies or employees. So it eternally grows like a cancer. But it's a cancer that can force any one of us individuals to do exactly what it wishes.
This "massively growing cancer" is at most the size it has been under Reagan. It's been shrinking for decades.
I havent come to HN and thought this either.
In Comments
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
Not knocking the vocation. But that sort of thing seems like it could be much more competitively contracted.