[mindslight]

... which has been allowed and caused by the Republican congressional obstructionism going on since the 90's. Bush, Obama, and Biden could have reduced their own use of executive power, but they couldn't undo it - rather it was Congress that would have had to reign them in and shrink executive power. Just as the current Congress is ultimately allowing Trump's ongoing authoritarian power grabs, rather than passing laws and impeaching.

For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" unless they are under the direct command of the President. No, the agencies were created by Congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress has not been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.

[try_the_bass]

> No, the agencies were created by congress, and have always been accountable to Congress. But Congress hasn't been doing its job, which is why they seem unaccountable.

If Congress hasn't been doing its job, then they don't just seem unaccountable, they actually are.

[mindslight]

The levers of accountability could have been pulled any time, so it stands to say that they were still accountable. Perhaps they weren't held accountable as much as you or I would have liked. But the authority was there.

But either way I don't really see what greater point you're trying to make.

[try_the_bass]

Just that there is no practical difference between "seeming unaccountable" and "being unaccountable", especially if, as you say, "the levers of accountability could have been pulled", but weren't. If the departments aren't being held accountable, they are, by definition, acting unaccountably.

You seemed to disagree, and be trying to make a distinction where no practical difference can be found. You also seem to agree that they haven't been held accountable, which makes this apparent distinction even less coherent! This kind of just comes across as contrarian, or perhaps sophistry to avoid agreeing with an apparent opponent?

[mindslight]

The distinction is precisely in what criteria they're held accountable for, in the context of politics with many differing interests. Your cry about "being unaccountable" pertains to what you personally think they need to have been directed to do but weren't.

The mechanism is there. If Congress is not passing new legislation to change agency actions, that de facto means that Congress is content with the current actions. They have been accountable to Congress, and Congress has been content to let them keep doing what they're doing.

[try_the_bass]

I don't think this is mutually-exclusive to what I'm saying?

It's equally plausible that the reason Congress has not called an organization to account is simply because that organization is beneath Congress' notice. Congress has as incredibly broad mandate, and necessarily prioritizes. This means some organizations are simply not enough of a priority to warrant any attention.

It is in this dearth of attention that waste can thrive!

[exe34]

> but weren't

Does that imply unaccountable, or does it mean Congress thought they were doing a good job?

[XorNot]

Exactly this. People say "unaccountable" but the follow up question is "for what?".

The misinformation era means there's a gulf of frequently incorrect assumptions about what the Federal agencies actually do.

[try_the_bass]

Again, if these agencies are never actually held accountable, this is functionally identical to "unaccountable".

I mean, what if Congress created them to be unaccountable? Then both things would be true!

[exe34]

Are you claiming the fbi has never been called to testify before Congress? or are you claiming that it didn't happen enough? or that it didn't happen for the things you personally wanted it to happen over?

these are very different situations, and it appears you wish to defend the motte and get the bailey for free?

[_heimdall]

Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office? Or that Congress held primary decision making authority behind the number of executive orders signed by presidents since then?

[vkou]

> Are you arguing that only Republicans have controlled Congress singe Bush Jr was in office?

Republicans have been able to stop congress from doing anything they didn't like since... 2010.

They can't even get their shit together to pass legislature when they control congress, but they've always been able to prevent it from passing legislature, or exercising oversight. Just like they are doing right now.

[_heimdall]

Both sides have been able to stop congress if I'm not mistaken (I don't think we've had a super majority for a while now).

The republicans have been more willing to pull that lever, but the system is designed such that its a perfectly legal lever to pull.

[mindslight]

No and no. I'm referring to Gingrich's attitude of never crossing the aisle leading to Congressional gridlock. And how a functioning Congress could have easily passed laws nullifying most executive orders (especially the ones grabbing extra power). It was precisely the power vacuum of Congress that enabled the strong executive.

[_heimdall]

Anyone in congress can cross the aisle though, the hesitation to do so isn't unique.

I do agree though that inept congresses has allowed the executive branch to act so powerfully. My only caveat is that congress first had to give those powers to the executive such that they could eventually be abused. Earlier congresses didn't have to choose to empower the executive branch with so much authority.

[mindslight]

The ability wasn't unique, but how much it was used as part of an deliberate overall strategy was. Even recently, half of the introspection articles for why the democrats lost the election are asking how they can compromise with republicans more.

I don't really buy the argument the argument that earlier congresses should have foreseen their future inability to pass new legislation and done more to preemptively restrict how the executive could have abused general mandates. Passing highly specific fine grained laws would have been ineffective, both in the work required to foresee and draft all the specifics, and also having a few words changed here and there by lobbyists, completely undermining the intent. Congress could have delegated rule making to some sort of sub-legislative body rather than interpretation by the executive, but as I said that would have required them to foresee the gridlock that would leave them unable to clarify. Also, the possibility of having an outright-hostile-to-America-as-they-understand-it executive would have been pretty foreign to them.

[rayiner]

> For another example, take the frequent neofascist argument that the federal agencies are "unaccountable" without being under the direct command of the President

It’s not “neofascist” lol, it’s just what the constitution says. The first sentence of article II: “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

It’s not Congress’s job to hold executive branch employees accountable any more than it’s Congress’s job to hold judicial law clerks in the courts accountable. It’s the President’s job, in whom the executive power is vested.

That’s also reflected in the appointments clause. Anyone with discretionary authority must be either appointed by the president, or report to someone who is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf. The whole point is to make the executive branch highly responsive to Presidenfial elections.

[digitaltrees]

Congress is supposed to hold both employees and departments accountable. Employees are held accountable via the advise and consent power so that the leadership of departments isn't beholden to the executive. Departments are held accountable by the budget process, don't do a good job, don't get appropriations. The executive power is merely administrative and logistical.

[mindslight]

The executive power, as being laid out in the Constitution. Not all executive power. This is plainly clear by appointments requiring approval of the Senate. If the "executive branch" were meant to be a singular top-down command structure, then such approval (or ability to impeach) would not be required. This push for an authoritarian command structure is one pillar of what makes the term "fascist" appropriate.

I was not talking about the accountability of individual employees according to the law. The accountability I was talking about was the mandate for an agency. That was set by Congress when they created the agency, and can thus be clarified or changed by Congress at any time.

[rayiner]

“The executive power” means “all the executive power,” in the same way “the judicial power” in Article III means “all the judicial power.” Or do you think the other branches can properly exercise some judicial power? Advice-and-consent isn’t an exercise of executive power, it’s a check on executive power, just like impeachment.

Sure, Congress can change or clarify the mandate of an agency, and the President must go along with that. But what we’re talking about with Trump is accountability for individual employees and the discretionary conduct of executive branch employees.

For example, Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for USAID operations, “for purposes of the carrying out the 1961 foreign development act” (paraphrasing). I agree the executive must ultimately spend that money within the broad mandate of the appropriation. But do you spend that money on DEI in Serbia or pro-natalism in South Korea? Clearly the President should be able to decide that.

[clcaev]

Congress often specifies the criteria by which grants are made, qualifications and funding priorities. Sometimes these can be very specific, eg "earmarks".

[rayiner]

Sometimes they do. But often they do not. Look at the appropriations bill for USAID: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771....

> UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT > Funds Appropriated To The President

> For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,214,808,000 (increased by $5,000,000) (reduced by $5,000,000), of which up to $182,221,000 may remain available until September 30, 2026

Section 667 of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act just says the money is for “operating expenses” for administering the Act. Who decides how to spend that $1.2 billion?

[mindslight]

You're focused on the money while ignoring the actual motivating legislation of the original Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. From a quick scan:

> Under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State, the agency primarily responsible for administering this part should have the responsibility for coordinating all United States development-related activities

"Guidance". Not direct command. The primary criteria of the agency is to carry out what Congress directed by making the Act. If I'm following your argument in this thread, you mean to say that doing so requires execution, is thus executive power, thus putting it under the full command of the President.

> SEC. 104A. ø22 U.S.C. 2151b–2¿ ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS.

DEI is a bit of a straw man, but there is an entire section on HIV/AIDS! That's a goal spelled out by Congress, which is meant to be executed independent from the desires of a would be president-king. Obviously the executive has leeway in how to interpret the grey areas ("guidance"), but the wholesale disruption/pausing/scrapping is illegal.

It's truly a travesty because the Republicans control both houses of Congress! They could easily pass legislation suspending USAID, and/or legislation for widespread audits of agencies culminating in DOGE. But they haven't.

[K0balt]

Ummm no? The president is not tasked with those decisions , those are the purview of congress who should be pulling to make those expenditures benefit their constituents as may be possible..

[rayiner]

Congress does not decide how to make individual grants.