Tag Archives: law

There Are Three Branches

Posted on by
Reply

Under our constitutional Federal government there are exactly three branches—judiciary, legislative, and executive—neither more nor fewer. The legislative—our Congress—can, and does, create departments (other than the Constitutionally mandated State and Defense (however titled)) and agencies within the Executive Branch. Our Constitution names the President as the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch with sole responsibility for enforcing the laws that Congress enacts.

Whether Congress claims this or that agency to be “independent” or not, all of those agencies, by being within the Executive Branch, are—must be—under the control of the President, which control includes the hiring and firing of all of an agency’s employees, and the firing aspect of that includes politically appointed employees who must be confirmed by the Senate after a Presidential nomination in order to fully take office.

That firing authority was finally acknowledged by the Supreme Court in its just released ruling in Trump v Slaughter, which explicitly overruled the 91 years prior wrongly decided Humphrey’s Executor v US.

William Galston demurred from that ruling in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

While the chief justice is right that the FTC’s executive functions have expanded since 1935, it hasn’t ceased to exercise legislative and judicial functions as well. The FTC isn’t simply part of the executive branch; it was designed to be independent. It’s hard to see why Congress can’t mandate special firing procedures for such hybrid entities.

The FTC isn’t simply part of the executive branch; it was designed to be independent. That’s Galston’s error. There are only those three branches of our government; “independent” agencies cannot exist outside of those three, and being within one or another of them, they cannot be independent. Nor can they carry out, from within one of them, any of the functions of either of the others—that would eliminate the separation of powers that is at the core of our government’s structure.

Galston made this argument, citing James Madison in Federalist No 47:

Separation of powers doesn’t mean the branches of government have no role in any other branch. It means that when “the same hands” control more than one branch of government, the fundamental principles of a free Constitution are subverted.

Madison was right, but Galston’s usage is a non sequitur. “The same hands” do not control more than one branch of government except when one branch dictates to the others how they must go about their constitutionally mandated duties, as Congress attempts to do when it sets about hamstringing the President’s control over the entities in his branch.

In particular, Congress

  • cannot create a legislative agency, place it with the Executive Branch, and then tell the President he must do what that agency requires
  • cannot create a judicial agency, place it within the Judiciary Branch, and then omit the judges from that oversight, leaving that task to the Executive) Branch—to the President
  • cannot reach into either of those other branches and dictate to its chief how he must carry out any oversight
  • must place an agency with judicial functions inside the judiciary branch and leave the entirety of oversight to the Chief Justice
  • must place an agency with executive functions inside the Executive Branch and leave the entirety of oversight to the President
  • must keep an agency with legislative functions inside the Legislative Branch. Only then can Congress specify how oversight must be carried out. Of course, a Legislative Branch agency would have no enforcement capability; that is the sole province of the Executive.

Congress exercises all the control over the Executive Branch it needs and is allowed to have via its constitutionally created ability to control the funds available to the Executive and any of his Departments and agencies, and through the oversight hearings it uses to inform itself of Executive Branch doings.

Not Contentment or Fulfillment…

Posted on by
Reply

…but security in their property ownership, along with their life and liberty, from which contentment and fulfillment may well result. A letter-writer in Monday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal has made that confusion. He wrote, in response to William Galston’s What “Created Equal” Means in America,

One of the inalienable rights with which all Americans are endowed equally by their creator is “the pursuit of happiness.” The operative word is “pursuit.” No person has a right to happiness, but all have the right to seek contentment and fulfillment by striving to live decent and dignified lives.

That’s not the happiness the inalienable right to pursue which that’s acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, though. John Adams had made that clear beforehand in his Preamble to the Massachusetts constitution:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The natural, essential, and unalienable rights of life and liberty and of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property creates the capacity for contentment and fulfillment. The latter does not exist without the formers’ prior existence.

Progressive-Democrats for Child Abuse

Posted on by
Reply

The lede has it.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is pouring $15 million into new sex change initiatives for children and adults, framing the taxpayer-funded move as a defense against the federal government.

It’s bad enough, some of that money being spent on grown adults making their own decisions about their bodies and their lifestyles, but why are taxpayer dollars being donated to this?

It’s completely despicable, though, that one red cent is being spent to mutilate children with these procedures that are irreversible, cause severe long-term physiological and emotional damage, and are done from decisions made by children who are wholly incapable of such decisions or by adults acceding to these children’s wants.

What’s almost as bad, though, is that no one in Progressive-Democratic Party leadership, no one in Party establishment—no mainstream member at all—is speaking against this government-sponsored mutilation of badly confused children. This is what Party will inflict on all of our children if this calculated tragedy is allowed to spread beyond New York City.

False Dichotomy

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are at it again. Their lede lays out their (unrecognized) mistake.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Win—or more likely—lose, he might take note that the success of the US men’s national soccer team in this year’s World Cup is the product in part of America’s historically welcoming immigration system and automatic grant of birthright citizenship to children born in the US.

Correcting the decades of misapprehension of the 14th Amendment and “birthright citizenship” wouldn’t at all make us unwelcoming. All the correction would do (sadly, the editors are likely correct about the likelihood of a favorable ruling) is eliminate the automatic citizenship granted to babies whose parents, by their own intent and action, hold themselves outside our nation’s jurisdiction, being present only under our nation’s power.

The editors closed their piece with this bit and no trace of understanding of its irony:

America’s World Cup men’s team shows again how bringing in foreign talent can be a win for the individuals and for the country.

Legal immigrants. Immigrant citizens or sons of immigrants (because FIFA’s national teams are required to be citizens, not hirelings), who vastly outnumber the one birthright citizen on the team.

Legal immigrants, after the end of birthright citizenship, would remain highly welcome and encouraged to come and join our great nation. The fact that one of the players on our national soccer team is a birthright citizen is irrelevant to any of that.

There is a Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Crystal FitzSimons, Food Research & Action Center President, is worried that reduced participation in SNAP is not an indication of reduced need for assistance.

[T]the law’s stricter time limits, administrative hurdles, and pending cost-shift to states, along with inadequate benefits, are pushing eligible households off the program.

She correctly outlined the benefits of SNAP (which, I claim, generalize to welfare programs in general):

When investments are made in SNAP, real progress is made toward lifting people out of poverty. …
When SNAP benefits better align with increasing food costs, more families stay above the poverty line. When barriers increase, the opposite happens.

But she proposed the wrong solution.

Through legislation, Congress should ensure that everyone has the nutrition they need to thrive rather than make it harder for families to put food on the table.

No.

In our federated republican form of government, the member States are responsible, each for its own internal affairs. It’s time for them to stop freeloading off the Federal government—freeloading off the citizens of the other 49 States—and start honoring their own obligations toward their own citizens. Each State has the money. It simply needs to reallocate its spending and stop taking ever more money away from its own citizens in the form of ever rising tax rates.