●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byJoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) writes:
There are at least three different reasons this is bad.
First, this is one more sign (of about 15 court cases at this point) that this court is willing to give Trump massive powers simply because he is pushing for them and they agree with him politically. And there's no reason to remotely think he's going to stop.
Second, it means that the Presidency (already an already too powerful office in the modern form for any one person) is going to be even more powerful under for the first time under a far more
bysg_oneill ( 159032 ) writes:
It is not lost on me that during the Biden and Obama administrations the supreme court tended towards limiting Executive power, then during the trump administrations have leant towards a massive expansion of them.
When sane government eventually returns i think it would be prudent for congress to actually set out some clear boundaries as to executive power, and work towards a separation of public service from executive power. Because this is all bullshit. In MOST countries while there will be ministers in ch
bybkmoore ( 1910118 ) writes:
It is not lost on me that during the Biden and Obama administrations the supreme court tended towards limiting Executive power, then during the trump administrations have leant towards a massive expansion of them.
Trump has been batting 1000 at the Supreme Court when it comes to executive power, or executive immunity. Either our Constitution was designed to have an elected King, and we only discovered that fact 230 years later, or our Supreme Court is supremely corrupt. I tend to believe the latter, as it seems there are only two rules at the Supreme Court: (1) There are no rules, and (2) Trump always wins.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You missed an important option: Trump is winning because he is correct based on the facts.
You commies can't fathom it, but Trump follows the constitution. If you don't want the President in charge of these agencies, don't put them under the Executive branch, of which Donald Trump is the Chief.
bystevew ( 4845 ) writes:
When you are right you are right. Like usual, if you read the Constitution you find out that these "Stand Alone" agencies likely aren't Constitutional! What you say? Well there are just 3 parts of the government defined - you won't find those agencies described or the mechanisms Congress created in the Constitution if you go look. So they have to exist SOMEWHEE within one of the three branches. If the President is the on that gets to nominate the "principal officers" that are the folks that run these agen
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
The problem is that our government has evolved well beyond what was spelled out in the constitution and said evolution was largely based on gentlemen's agreements and precedent to maintain the spirit of separation of powers. While this is sloppy as fuck what's happening now should not be celebrated. The old agreements and the appreciation of precedent have all gone out the window.
The practical effect of what this ruling does here is it fully politicizes the bureaucracy. Now instead of career bureaucrats tha
byLazLong ( 757 ) writes:
No, it has not "evolved beyond" what is framed in the Constitution. Congress has created the laws and institutions to implement the powers it is given. It's as simple as that. Go read Article I.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Our government has changed immensely since our founding. If you want to live in denial of that fact that's fine with me.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
That was not the claim.
Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy.
The Constitution is what gives Congress the power to make laws which implement those other parts of the government, so in no way is that moving past the Constitution.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
I'll reply to both of you the same since all you're doing is pointing out my sloppy use of language instead of spending some time thinking critically about this.
Here's just one example that I'm using because it fits this exact scenario.
The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them. This is how we ended up with one Supreme Court decision in the 1930's that decided to limited executive
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
Sorry for the second post but you deserve a better reply than my first one to you.
Here are some great sources for you to read in regard to the evolution of our government. Please note that many of these changes happen without constitutional amendments. Not everything listed in these links apply to my point but quite a bit does.
https://www.history.com/articl... [history.com]
https://millercenter.org/presi... [millercenter.org]
https://courses.lumenlearning.... [lumenlearning.com]
Fun fact, were you aware that it was the Supreme Court that established the principl
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
The referenced second link was supposed to be this article https://www.siue.edu/~dhostet/... [siue.edu] . I accidentally copied a link twice instead of posting this one.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them.
I don't buy that argument, and here's why: They knew political parties were a problem but they didn't spend literally any time writing rules for them. What I think is that they wanted problems they thought they would be the only ones smart enough to exploit.
The founding fathers claimed all men were created equal, then gave the vote only to landed white males. They were not all the same, but they all colluded to preserve their power.
byLazLong ( 757 ) writes:
Did I say it hasn't changed? No. I said it has not "evolved beyond" what is framed in the Constitution. RTFC. Don't project.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
I'll reply to both of you the same since all you're doing is pointing out my sloppy use of language instead of spending some time thinking critically about this.
Here's just one example that I'm using because it fits this exact scenario.
The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them. This is how we ended up with one Supreme Court decision in the 1930's that decided to limited executive
●ent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...