The formerly Democrat Government-subsidized Politico said Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution is “fringe.” Forget the fact that Politico is fringe. The Constitution isn’t fringe. They are.
Article II; Section 1; Clause 1 President’s Role
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years and, together with the Vice President chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows.
Politico on Donald Trump’s assertion of the “unitary executive” theory [which comes directly from the Constitution].
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a sweeping executive order bringing independent agencies under the control of the White House — an action that would greatly expand his power but is likely to attract significant legal challenges.
It represents Trump’s latest attempt to consolidate power beyond boundaries other presidents have observed and to test the so-called unitary executive theory, which states that the president has the sole authority over the executive branch. And it reflects the influence of Russ Vought, Trump’s budget chief, one of several conservatives in his orbit who have called for axing independent arms of the executive branch.
The theory was long considered fringe, and many mainstream legal scholars still believe it is illegal, given that Congress set the agencies up specifically to act independently, or semi-independently, from the president. These include the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, all of which enact regulations and can impose hefty fines on businesses that violate the rules.
It isn’t against the law—it is the law. If they are too independent, they become rogue agencies, and that is what some are. For example, Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one, and USAID is another. Forced to keep partisan political operatives in a new administration is another problem.
Humphrey’s Executor
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rid us of Humphry’s Executor. It is the last unconstitutional law that stands in the way of unitary executive theory.
The Supreme Court decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States says that the law provides that a commission member may be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The Acting Solicitor General is asking the Supreme Court to nullify that decision. Humphrey’s ruling limits the President’s power to address political appointees’ politicizing decisions.
Hampton Dellinger’s firing will be decided quickly, and it is directly tied to this. It limits the grounds by which a president can fire an employee.
Progressive Democrats think the entire Constitution is fringe. Anything that interferes with their opinions, including the law is fringe. Their legal advisors are the ones that are fringe.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
The principle that there is a leader with major power is age old in human history. So, something which drove human history is “fringe”, according to communists.
Matt Gaetz is doing well at OAN. He had a long discussion on how executive power is law and how it will be handled in the courts. He knows the law and knows DC
I don’t have the vocabulary that law experts have but in my own words; if an employee of a government agency chooses selectively to do certain things and not do other things with the goal of helping one political party and hinder the other party, that is Neglect of Duty….
Because it is not their duty to use their advantageous position to help the party they agree with, it is not their job to do that, thus it is Neglect of Duty…..
And it means they can be fired for it.
Willful dereliction of duty. Sedition. Insubordination. Conspiracy. Just to name a few.
I guess they’ve never heard of the ‘fringe‘ idea of plenary power.
The Chevron decision also changes past beliefs.