[ty6853]

This system is squarely in the hands of the executive. The elected executive handed access to DOGE, as he advertised in his campaign. This is so squarely and fairly a democratic action it defies logic this is even worth taking note of. This is what the people, who the government is beholden to, explicitly asked for. Tyranny would be NOT handing it over.

[locopati]

The Constitution provides for checks&balances. This violates the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). It is unconstitutional like so many of these executive orders that violate the 1st and 4th Amendments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

[ty6853]

I find it hard to believe every employee accessing the system without a congressional appointment is violating the constitution. Perhaps that is the case but I haven't heard a peep from constitutional watchdogs until now. Can you explain why it's suddenly unconstitutional when the US digital service employees access it?

[blandcoffee]

Interesting - I genuinely want to understand your perspective here.

Are you saying following the laws to protect sensitive information is not worth it in this case, because it has been authorized by the party of the day?

[ty6853]

That sounds like a 'why did you beat your wife' kind of question. No comment here has established law was broken, nor did you even cite any specific crime. Genuinely have no idea what red herring you are going on here.

[silverquiet]

Over the last decade or so I've ceased to believe that laws even really exist or that anything matters.