The headline is misleading. The order is specifically limited to executive branch employees.
Basically saying they aren’t allowed to use their own judgement to determine legality of what they’re asked to do. They have to follow the judgement of the president and the AG, and do what’s ordered of them.
"Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. "
Not sure about this. Not because this is what the folks writing the constitution would have wanted, it’s because they would have been puzzled with why the executive branch has just so much scope at all. They presumed a much more limited sort of executive branch and this sort of strategy might have mapped to that idea. They wouldn’t have imagined we’d just keep piling on more and more power in the executive branch and rely on “norms” to keep that structure from pivoting badly on a single troublesome election.
Yes, and to that end, I think they would have thought the evolution of the executive branch to now would have been counter to their goals. As to how the executive branch self-organizes, I don’t think that was a huge concern since that should never have been as big a branch as it grew to be.
Strictly speaking, the EO does not refer to Judicial or Legislative folks, only those who ultimately belong to the executive branch. They didn’t imagine that the executive branch would have de-facto unilateral control over so much scope.
Wait. What?
Is that why some people downvoted?
Would you be willing to explain how pointing out the actual order is fascist?
To me it’s just what the news is supposed to do. But didn’t. For reasons.
I never said anything sporting or defending it. The closest I got was saying, it probably won’t matter much to anything. Which as far as I can tell is true. If you can explain how that’s wrong I’d love to hear that also.
In practical terms yes.
Technically, if someone thinks something their told to do is illegal, they can refuse to do it, and go to court over it. I don’t know the details really. I’d guess it’s something mostly along the lines of whistleblower stuff. Which almost never works out for the whistleblower. So yah. This order likely won’t have any practical effect. But it can be twisted into great headline. I’m going to stop there, before I get into a big rant about how stupid and lazy most news media is, and why.
n a normal administration I think you’re right, but this isn’t a normal administration. Officials who take an oath are sworn to uphold the constitution, not to follow orders from the president. Soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders, and DOJ attorneys have similar traditions.
If the president and top Justice department officials are knowingly and repeatedly ordering them to take actions that are clearly illegal, and are publicly known to be doing so… they’re not whistleblowers, they’re conscientious objectors to a criminal enterprise being run openly by public officials.
I don’t really disagree with any of that. And I don’t see how it suggests anything I wrote was wrong.
Unless you’re suggesting conscientious objector stuff, replace my idea of whistleblower stuff. To which I can say… Sure? I guess? I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know enough about the details to know the difference.
Most of the judicial branch’s effective power comes from precedent: the court rules on one case, and that informs other officials’ interpretation of the law in similar circumstances going forward. This order seems to replace judicial precedent with the president’s opinion as the basis for interpreting the law outside the courts, with the court now only able to override that opinion on a case by case basis.
The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law: for the general public, the law is effectively what the executive branch says it is unless you have the resources to take them to court and prove otherwise.
America signed the Rome Statutes, but never ratified it, and eventually withdrew entirely. They wield “international law” like a whip, but don’t subscribe to it themselves. America is the epitome of rules for thee and none for me.
Erasing an entire branch of the US government
A branch that favors him, nonetheless
The headline is misleading. The order is specifically limited to executive branch employees.
Basically saying they aren’t allowed to use their own judgement to determine legality of what they’re asked to do. They have to follow the judgement of the president and the AG, and do what’s ordered of them.
"Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. "
Still unconstitutional as fuck
Not sure about this. Not because this is what the folks writing the constitution would have wanted, it’s because they would have been puzzled with why the executive branch has just so much scope at all. They presumed a much more limited sort of executive branch and this sort of strategy might have mapped to that idea. They wouldn’t have imagined we’d just keep piling on more and more power in the executive branch and rely on “norms” to keep that structure from pivoting badly on a single troublesome election.
But one of the major points of the document is to divide and limit power.
Yes, and to that end, I think they would have thought the evolution of the executive branch to now would have been counter to their goals. As to how the executive branch self-organizes, I don’t think that was a huge concern since that should never have been as big a branch as it grew to be.
Strictly speaking, the EO does not refer to Judicial or Legislative folks, only those who ultimately belong to the executive branch. They didn’t imagine that the executive branch would have de-facto unilateral control over so much scope.
So he wants them to “just follow orders”…
What’s wrong with that? Nothing horrific has been perpetrated in the past by people who were “just following orders”…
Yeah, it seems that much of the discussion online is based on the press conference where the order was announced, not the actual text of the order.
I think he literally wanted to throw the word “authoritative” into the universe. Just to test the waters.
STFU you worthless fascist
Wait. What?
Is that why some people downvoted?
Would you be willing to explain how pointing out the actual order is fascist?
To me it’s just what the news is supposed to do. But didn’t. For reasons.
I never said anything sporting or defending it. The closest I got was saying, it probably won’t matter much to anything. Which as far as I can tell is true. If you can explain how that’s wrong I’d love to hear that also.
Is that not already how it works?
In practical terms yes.
Technically, if someone thinks something their told to do is illegal, they can refuse to do it, and go to court over it. I don’t know the details really. I’d guess it’s something mostly along the lines of whistleblower stuff. Which almost never works out for the whistleblower. So yah. This order likely won’t have any practical effect. But it can be twisted into great headline. I’m going to stop there, before I get into a big rant about how stupid and lazy most news media is, and why.
n a normal administration I think you’re right, but this isn’t a normal administration. Officials who take an oath are sworn to uphold the constitution, not to follow orders from the president. Soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders, and DOJ attorneys have similar traditions.
If the president and top Justice department officials are knowingly and repeatedly ordering them to take actions that are clearly illegal, and are publicly known to be doing so… they’re not whistleblowers, they’re conscientious objectors to a criminal enterprise being run openly by public officials.
I don’t really disagree with any of that. And I don’t see how it suggests anything I wrote was wrong.
Unless you’re suggesting conscientious objector stuff, replace my idea of whistleblower stuff. To which I can say… Sure? I guess? I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know enough about the details to know the difference.
It doesn’t seem that this bill does that.
I think it’s taking power from agencies like the fda and fcc. It doesn’t say anything about the courts.
But I might not understand everything perfectly.
Most of the judicial branch’s effective power comes from precedent: the court rules on one case, and that informs other officials’ interpretation of the law in similar circumstances going forward. This order seems to replace judicial precedent with the president’s opinion as the basis for interpreting the law outside the courts, with the court now only able to override that opinion on a case by case basis.
The EO constrains itself to the executive branch, judicial employees are not subject to it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law: for the general public, the law is effectively what the executive branch says it is unless you have the resources to take them to court and prove otherwise.
And that does not usurp the judicial branch as stated above.
And when the top tier of the Judicial Branch is already the Fascist’s lapdog?
That still reduces the executive to “just following orders” which is a principle that’s not accepted anywhere that follows the rule of law.
That’s the beautiful part, apparently that no longer applies to the USA.
Did it ever?
America signed the Rome Statutes, but never ratified it, and eventually withdrew entirely. They wield “international law” like a whip, but don’t subscribe to it themselves. America is the epitome of rules for thee and none for me.
It’s not a bill, it’s an executive order
Foolish hyperbole only feeds into their propaganda, don’t take the bait. Be measured and precise, clumsy blows will only help your enemy.