-------------------
Dr. Reich is worried about the president gaining too much power, something he never worried about with Democratic presidents. He does his best to tilt the argument into a dangerous situation, appealing to a Constitution he hates, in opposition to a Supreme court he hates, to put down a president he hates.
The Left is only worried about power when they don't have it.
---------------------------
The Supreme Court majority throws out the New Deal and much else
Friends,
(...)
Part of the reason the FTC has been so effective is that it is — or was — independent, and therefore immune to the political moves of powerful corporations seeking to stop it from acting for the common good. (This is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as an independent agency. No government agency is immune from politics. In fact, most of these agencies are populated by progressives pushing the Leftist agenda.)
The FTC was established in 1914 as part of what’s known as the “progressive era” when the government first sought to rescue the nation from the grip of the robber barons who then ran the railroads, oil, shipping, and much of the rest of the economy — and corrupted the nation’s politics — during the First Gilded Age.
Reformers of that era created an income tax to try to limit the Robber Barons’ incomes, (The purpose of the income tax was to limit robber barons' incomes? Really? In actual fact, the progressives of the era recognized that to install the central control they desired, along with expensive welfare programs and other big government objectives, would require funding sources beyond the constitutional restrictions.
It’s a bonkers theory because the framers didn’t say anything like this. In fact, their biggest fear was that the executive branch would become too powerful. (Dr. Reich didn't have a problem with this when Democrats occupied the presidency.)
In 2020, the Roberts Supreme Court laid the groundwork for reversing Humphrey’s Executor in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law that created the bureau — again, using language identical to that at issue in Humphrey’s Executor — said the president could remove its director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
In a 5-4 decision, the Roberts Supreme Court struck down that provision, ruling that it violated the separation of powers and that the president could remove the bureau’s director for any reason. (Dr. Reich seems to like judicial precedent, unless and until it goes against his ideology.)
Roberts, writing for the majority, said the presidency requires an “energetic executive.” He continued: “In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.”
Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — would have pulled the plug on independent agencies then and there. Thomas wrote: “The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people. With today’s decision, the court has repudiated almost every aspect of Humphrey’s Executor. In a future case, I would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent.” (Justice Thomas gets it exactly right, as usual.)
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for what were then the court’s four liberals, dissented, saying the Constitution did not address the scope of the president’s power to fire subordinates. Congress should therefore be free, she said, to grant agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure.” (Actually, since the Constitution doesn't address the president's power in this area, his office should decide its power. However, if congress has the power to decide, it this means it would have the ability to redistribute power from one branch of government to another. This would be unconstitutional.)
That 2020 decision by the majority of the Supreme Court anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision in July of 2024 that granted Trump, then a private citizen, immunity from prosecution for any “official” conduct during his first term. (No, it acknowledged that the presidency possessed this immunity.)
Of all the things the framers of the Constitution worried about, their biggest worry was that a president would become as powerful as a king. Which is why they created Congress and the judiciary — to check and constrain him. ("Checks and balances," sir. All branches of government are constrained by the diffusing of power, not just the presidency.)
Congress has by now established 19 independent regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Special Counsel.
These independent agencies, staffed with experts, (Staffed with leftist operatives...)
The Supreme Court majority throws out the New Deal and much else
Friends,
(...)
Part of the reason the FTC has been so effective is that it is — or was — independent, and therefore immune to the political moves of powerful corporations seeking to stop it from acting for the common good. (This is utter nonsense. There is no such thing as an independent agency. No government agency is immune from politics. In fact, most of these agencies are populated by progressives pushing the Leftist agenda.)
The FTC was established in 1914 as part of what’s known as the “progressive era” when the government first sought to rescue the nation from the grip of the robber barons who then ran the railroads, oil, shipping, and much of the rest of the economy — and corrupted the nation’s politics — during the First Gilded Age.
Reformers of that era created an income tax to try to limit the Robber Barons’ incomes, (The purpose of the income tax was to limit robber barons' incomes? Really? In actual fact, the progressives of the era recognized that to install the central control they desired, along with expensive welfare programs and other big government objectives, would require funding sources beyond the constitutional restrictions.
Progressives have been at work to manipulate the power of government for a lot longer than most people realize.)
caps on corporate campaign expenditures to limit their political reach, and independent regulatory agencies such as the FTC to limit their power.
That progressive era was followed by the New Deal, when Congress and FDR established other independent regulatory agencies, modeled in part on the FTC, to use their expertise for the benefit of the American people — and not just the wealthiest an most powerful citizens whose unbridled greed had led the nation into the Great Depression. (Waaait. The 16th amendment [income tax] was ratified in 1913, and the FTC was created in 1914. The Great Depression didn't begin until 1929. How was it possible these initiatives had no effect on "unbridled greed?"
That progressive era was followed by the New Deal, when Congress and FDR established other independent regulatory agencies, modeled in part on the FTC, to use their expertise for the benefit of the American people — and not just the wealthiest an most powerful citizens whose unbridled greed had led the nation into the Great Depression. (Waaait. The 16th amendment [income tax] was ratified in 1913, and the FTC was created in 1914. The Great Depression didn't begin until 1929. How was it possible these initiatives had no effect on "unbridled greed?"
And by the way, "unbridled greed" is a moral failing. Since when has the Left been in the favor of legislating morality?)
We’re now in America’s Second Gilded Age, when a new set of robber barons (think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry and David Ellison) are running much of the economy and corrupting our politics. (Waaait. We are 100+ years removed from the installation of programs and agencies that were designed to limit the power of "robber barons." Why didn't these programs prevent the "second gilded age?")
Unfortunately, we now have a president and a Supreme Court, three of whose members he appointed, who are in their pockets.
Hence, today’s Supreme Court ruling that a president can utterly disregard the will of Congress and install his own hacks in all independent regulatory agencies (with the odd exception of the Federal Reserve Board). (Progressives have insinuated themselves into every government agency, charity, and corporate headquarters in order to further their objectives. So the reason Dr. Reich objects to the court's decision is because it gives the President power to remove personnel who are not in conformity with his objectives.
Today’s ruling is in direct conflict with a 1935 case in which the Court ruled that FDR could not replace an FTC commissioner because Congress had explicitly given FTC commissioners protection against such firing, in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Today marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of that New Deal-era precedent. (Irony Alert. These days, the Left would simply pack the Supreme Court in order to obtain their leftist agenda.)
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, saying they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” — the same language that Congress has since used to protect most other independent commissioners and board members throughout government.
Franklin D. Roosevelt nonetheless fired commissioner William Humphrey, arguing only that Humphrey’s actions were not aligned with the administration’s policy goals. (One of the very few things on which we agree with FDR.)
We’re now in America’s Second Gilded Age, when a new set of robber barons (think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry and David Ellison) are running much of the economy and corrupting our politics. (Waaait. We are 100+ years removed from the installation of programs and agencies that were designed to limit the power of "robber barons." Why didn't these programs prevent the "second gilded age?")
Unfortunately, we now have a president and a Supreme Court, three of whose members he appointed, who are in their pockets.
Hence, today’s Supreme Court ruling that a president can utterly disregard the will of Congress and install his own hacks in all independent regulatory agencies (with the odd exception of the Federal Reserve Board). (Progressives have insinuated themselves into every government agency, charity, and corporate headquarters in order to further their objectives. So the reason Dr. Reich objects to the court's decision is because it gives the President power to remove personnel who are not in conformity with his objectives.
Such a power is quite appropriate, since the President appoints FTC commissioners.)
Today’s ruling is in direct conflict with a 1935 case in which the Court ruled that FDR could not replace an FTC commissioner because Congress had explicitly given FTC commissioners protection against such firing, in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Today marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of that New Deal-era precedent. (Irony Alert. These days, the Left would simply pack the Supreme Court in order to obtain their leftist agenda.)
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, saying they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” — the same language that Congress has since used to protect most other independent commissioners and board members throughout government.
Franklin D. Roosevelt nonetheless fired commissioner William Humphrey, arguing only that Humphrey’s actions were not aligned with the administration’s policy goals. (One of the very few things on which we agree with FDR.)
The Supreme Court held that the firing was unlawful and the law establishing the independence of the Federal Trade Commission was constitutional.
But the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t like independent regulatory agencies. (Actually, the court fixed the error of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.)
But the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t like independent regulatory agencies. (Actually, the court fixed the error of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.)
Most of the current justices subscribe to what’s called the “unitary executive” theory, a bonkers notion that the framers intended for a president to have total control over every aspect of the executive branch. ("Bonkers?" It's bonkers that the chief executive of the executive branch would actually be the chief executive over the executive branch? What planet does Dr. Reich live on that the boss can't be the boss?)
It’s a bonkers theory because the framers didn’t say anything like this. In fact, their biggest fear was that the executive branch would become too powerful. (Dr. Reich didn't have a problem with this when Democrats occupied the presidency.)
In 2020, the Roberts Supreme Court laid the groundwork for reversing Humphrey’s Executor in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law that created the bureau — again, using language identical to that at issue in Humphrey’s Executor — said the president could remove its director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
In a 5-4 decision, the Roberts Supreme Court struck down that provision, ruling that it violated the separation of powers and that the president could remove the bureau’s director for any reason. (Dr. Reich seems to like judicial precedent, unless and until it goes against his ideology.)
Roberts, writing for the majority, said the presidency requires an “energetic executive.” He continued: “In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.”
Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — would have pulled the plug on independent agencies then and there. Thomas wrote: “The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people. With today’s decision, the court has repudiated almost every aspect of Humphrey’s Executor. In a future case, I would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent.” (Justice Thomas gets it exactly right, as usual.)
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for what were then the court’s four liberals, dissented, saying the Constitution did not address the scope of the president’s power to fire subordinates. Congress should therefore be free, she said, to grant agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure.” (Actually, since the Constitution doesn't address the president's power in this area, his office should decide its power. However, if congress has the power to decide, it this means it would have the ability to redistribute power from one branch of government to another. This would be unconstitutional.)
That 2020 decision by the majority of the Supreme Court anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision in July of 2024 that granted Trump, then a private citizen, immunity from prosecution for any “official” conduct during his first term. (No, it acknowledged that the presidency possessed this immunity.)
Of all the things the framers of the Constitution worried about, their biggest worry was that a president would become as powerful as a king. Which is why they created Congress and the judiciary — to check and constrain him. ("Checks and balances," sir. All branches of government are constrained by the diffusing of power, not just the presidency.)
Congress has by now established 19 independent regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Special Counsel.
These independent agencies, staffed with experts, (Staffed with leftist operatives...)
have become a major countervailing power to the political clout of large corporations. (...a problem we still have, apparently. So, what good have these agencies done?)
But as of today, they’re no longer independent and no longer have any countervailing power.
Today’s ruling overturns the basic idea — part of the fabric of our government for well over a century — that Congress has the power to create independent agencies. (This is not the issue. The ruling was about the leadership of these agencies, not the existence of them.)
As the nation prepares to mark the 250th anniversary of our independence from a king, the Supreme Court and our current president are doing everything possible to resurrect a king in America. (Dr. Reich has become a caricature of himself.)
But as of today, they’re no longer independent and no longer have any countervailing power.
Today’s ruling overturns the basic idea — part of the fabric of our government for well over a century — that Congress has the power to create independent agencies. (This is not the issue. The ruling was about the leadership of these agencies, not the existence of them.)
As the nation prepares to mark the 250th anniversary of our independence from a king, the Supreme Court and our current president are doing everything possible to resurrect a king in America. (Dr. Reich has become a caricature of himself.)
No comments:
Post a Comment