[strangeloops85]

Who knows? The executive orders read like they were written by children and don't clearly define what they mean by "DEIA". But NSF's authorization is from Congress. Unless congress passes a law rescinding this as a part of what counts as broader impacts, or the Supreme Court rules that increasing participation of underrepresented groups is unconstitutional (by precedent it is certainly not!), then NSF cannot simply change the definition of broader impacts.

[nickff]

NSF is an independent agency, and the degree of control over it which a President can legitimately exercise is disputed, but presidents from both parties have treated the independent agencies as being subject to executive orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Which article of the Constitution describes "independent agencies"? I'm only aware of: Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and State agencies.

[ineptech]

They're created by Congress but administratively part of the executive branch, as described in the first two paragraphs of the linked wiki article, and they're independent so they can be insulated from politics and regulate effectively.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

I understand that, I just think that's extra-constitutional and shields these agencies from accountability

[nickff]

I believe that Independent Agencies were created by the Progressives of the early 20th century. They were subsequently found to be constitutional, through somewhat dubious reasoning, and it seems like they’re now too big to fail.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Exactly what I was referring to, they are extra-Constitutional at best. And now the executive is rightfully taking them back under control

[jltsiren]

I think a better approach would be to rewrite the Constitution, taking into account what has been learned over the centuries. The executive branch should become more like a bureaucracy and less like a monarchy. In particular, department heads should have a degree of independence from the President, and it should only be possible to remove them before the normal term expires by impeachment or if the President and the Senate agree.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Agree in theory that we should try to rewrite our foundational laws rather than twist or ignore them.

Disagree with your specific proposals though. I want more accountability, not less. Your proposals also rely on Congress stepping up, which it hasn't done in some time

[gilbetron]

"independent agencies" isn't meant to be at the same level of the "Big Three", but rather agencies that are deliberately created by the Legislative branch (typically) to be as independent as the constitution allows. We don't need the president, congress, and the supreme court to vote/judge on every single decision that happens in this country. We create bodies to do that for us.

[EasyMark]

I will take the SCOTUS opinion on these laws being Constitutional over an comment on hackernews. We'll see what happens, I'm sure that Trumpy will try and get it to SCOTUS and test such institutions.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

That's fair, I generally apply the same rule!

Wondering what your thoughts are on presidential immunity, gun control, and abortion decisions though. Corporate personhood? Civil asset forfeiture?