Post New

We’re already there, folks.

While the lickspittles continue to insist, all evidence to the contrary, that we are not.

No. We are there.

All power has been gathered by, or given to the executive.

All that awaits is the full application. But that is coming quickly

I can't stop grinning !!!!!!!!!

(Though I'm not getting my hopes up. I don't feel you people are in a post0constitutional era yet. Though, I'd prefer Rightie tyrants do it before YOU Leftists do it - you've been aching to do it in so many ways)

We’re already there, folks.

No we're not.

But if we are, then you should join the other dude up in the mountains of Colorado, Red Dawn style. Remember that too much propane will negatively impact your carbon social score, so try to find some other way to keep warm up there!

But if we are, then you should join the other dude up in the mountains of Colorado, Red Dawn style.

That’s your fantasy. GFY.

That’s your fantasy. GFY.

Oh, come on, now. Surely you're ready to rock it Wolverine-style?

So, JD Vance is now saying that he and Trump don’t have to obey federal judges, tweeting, “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” This is how autocrats run things; it’s an extraordinarily dangerous moment.

It was Tuesday, July 17, 1787 and the men writing the Constitution had convened in Philadelphia to debate the separation of powers between the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. They drew their inspiration for that day from French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu, whose 1748 book The Spirit of the Laws had taken the New World and the Framers of the Constitution by storm.

In it, Montesquieu pointed out the absolute necessity of having three relatively co-equal branches of government, each with separate authorities, to prevent any one branch from seizing too much power and ending a nation’s democracy. In The Spirit of Laws, he laid it out unambiguously:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty. … Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.”

As the topic of the separation of powers was being debated at the Constitutional Convention that day twenty-nine years after Montesquieu’s book had been published, “Father of the Constitution” James Madison rose to address the delegates:

“If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other. …

“In like manner, a dependence of the executive [president] on the legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner.

“He [Montesquieu] conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well-constituted-republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other … for guarding against a dangerous union of the legislative and executive departments.”

If the president were ever to dictate all terms to the Congress, which then became a compliant rubber-stamp regardless of how excessive or even illegal the president’s actions became, that, Madison said, “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

From Thom Hartmann, “Welcome to James Madison’s nightmare: The very definition of Tyranny...”

We’re there now, even as lickspittles lie and say “All is well.”

It is not. The United States as a constitutional republic is being assassinated right before our eyes. And the same people who said January 6th was not a coup are looking at the destruction of our liberties and the government that protects these liberties, and trying to convince us that it’s just a slight bit of inconvenience and life will get back to normal soon enough.

We remember what happened when the deportees were told that they were merely being herded into those rooms to take showers.

It is not. The United States as a constitutional republic is being assassinated right before our eyes.

Lulz.

You loved this:
https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1795969437595500905?...

The Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn’t stop me.

I’ve relieved student debt for over 5 million Americans. I’m going to keep going.

Now we have judges claiming that The duly confirmed Treasury Secretary can't access the things in his own department.

That's stupidity, not tyranny. If there's any tyranny, it's not coming from Trump.

Now we have judges claiming that The duly confirmed Treasury Secretary can't access the things in his own department.

Are we?

That's been bandied about a bit, but I couldn't find any order doing exactly that. The closest I found was the order that blocked DOGE from getting access to records in the Treasury Department - but it doesn't seem like it would block the Treasury Secretary. The order is linked in the below news article:

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/judge-blocks-doge-acce...

As we've mentioned before, agencies are required by law to protect personally identifiable information from being accessed by other agencies. So DOGE wouldn't be allowed to access the records systems of other agencies if they contain that information. But that wouldn't apply to the Secretary accessing records in their own department.

Are we?

That's been bandied about a bit, but I couldn't find any order doing exactly that.

Ah, I found the broader order. It's below:

https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-N...

The TRO is written very broadly....but I don't think that the judge would construe his order to preclude Bessent from looking at the systems.

ORDERS that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the hearing of the
States’ application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department
payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury
Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial
information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job
duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security
clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury
Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special
government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the
Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any
other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable
information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any
person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who
has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately
destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and
systems, if any; and further
ORDERS that any opposition submission by defendants be filed by 5 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 11, 2025; and that any reply by the States be filed by 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 13,
2025; and further

Looks like restrained from granting access. But I could be reading it wrong.

Looks like restrained from granting access. But I could be reading it wrong.

No, I think that's right. The Treasury Secretary is the defendant in the case. He's the one who is being enjoined, and the injunction is against "granting access" to the data, not against accessing it themselves.

Bill, you forgot to Bold this,

If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other.

----------------

Yet your side would have the President reduced to function as a mere order taker for Congressional spending whims.

BHM, again: "Yet your side would have the President reduced to function as a mere order taker for Congressional spending whims."

False. Among other things, Presidents have veto power. Maybe read the U.S. Constitution? It's not very long.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

Yet your side would have the President reduced to function as a mere order taker for Congressional spending whims.

That's the job, though, of the President. Congress makes the laws, President executes the laws. That doesn't make him an "order taker" - it means that Congress gets to pass the spending laws, and the President follows them. Like every other law, the President has to do what Congress says, not what he thinks the law should provide.

The President isn't in charge of setting the rules for domestic policy - that's Congress' job, for the most part. The President's power is more in foreign affairs, which aren't really the area of legislative power. It's ironic that voters tend to base their choice of President more on domestic than foreign issues, but that's how the power is divided up.

Yet your side would have the President reduced to function as a mere order taker for Congressional spending whims.

As albaby has explained -exhaustively-, POTUS has a large influence on priorities. And, while he didn't mention it, POTUS also has the veto.

That's how the Constitution is structured. They didn't want a king, so they didn't give us a king. Congress has more granular representation (i.e. the numerous congressional districts), and -supposedly- better represents the people. So that's where a lot of the power resides. At least that is how it was designed.

The President's power is more in foreign affairs, which aren't really the area of legislative power.

Quibble. I believe the Senate has to ratify a treaty. Though, the executive negotiates the treaty (I believe). Once ratified, it is law.

I learned that detail because of the Treaty of Tripoli, which -among other things- establishes that the US is not a Christian nation. That is, therefore, the actual law of the land.

The President's power is more in foreign affairs, which aren't really the area of legislative power.

Quibble. I believe the Senate has to ratify a treaty.

True - I was just distinguishing from the "writing laws" part of the Legislative power. The Senate does a few other things that aren't really law-writing (confirm nominees, conduct trials on impeachments, ratify treaties). But since foreign powers aren't subject to our laws, the "normal" process of Legislating (House and Senate pass a bill to be signed by the President) isn't normally the subject of legislation, but rather the President acting as head of state.

No, I think that's right. The Treasury Secretary is the defendant in the case. He's the one who is being enjoined, and the injunction is against "granting access" to the data, not against accessing it themselves.

The TRO is rather interesting:

ORDERS that, sufficient reason having been shown therefor, pending the hearing of the
States’ application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department
payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury
Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial
information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job
duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security
clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury
Department regulations; (ii) restrained from granting access to all political appointees, special
government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the
Treasury Department, to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any
other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable
information and/or confidential financial information of payees; and (iii) ordered to direct any
person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who
has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately
destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and
systems, if any; and further

The bolded part is what I think the media twigged to but it clearly states no Treasury access to political appointees outside the Treasury department. The problem is that the DOGE people are underneath an outfit created by Congress also.

In (i) the problem with this is "other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job
duties". That's so nonsepecifc an order as to make it nonsensical. After all the people looking for waste...are doing their jobs.

The bolded part is what I think the media twigged to but it clearly states no Treasury access to political appointees outside the Treasury department. The problem is that the DOGE people are underneath an outfit created by Congress also.

Yes, but that's what falls within the Privacy Act of 1974. Agencies are prohibited from sharing their records of personally identifiable information - even with other agencies (subject to some exceptions not relevant here). It was adopted after Watergate in response to perceived improprieties during the Nixon Administration accessing and using agency records for purposes outside of the reason they were gathered. As a general matter, if an agency like Treasury has things like your bank records and account numbers and whatnot that were collected for the purpose of making payments to you, they're not allowed to let a different agency like DOGE have access to those records. If you give your personally identifiable information to Treasury, it can be used by Treasury - but not some other department.

Yes, but that's what falls within the Privacy Act of 1974. Agencies are prohibited from sharing their records of personally identifiable information - even with other agencies (subject to some exceptions not relevant here). It was adopted after Watergate in response to perceived improprieties during the Nixon Administration accessing and using agency records for purposes outside of the reason they were gathered. As a general matter, if an agency like Treasury has things like your bank records and account numbers and whatnot that were collected for the purpose of making payments to you, they're not allowed to let a different agency like DOGE have access to those records. If you give your personally identifiable information to Treasury, it can be used by Treasury - but not some other department.

Sure. The personally indefinable record part is somewhat overblown.
Almost all databases are hashed up into pieces so they can be sliced and diced for data reporting and analysis purposes. It's 100% not likely that Treasury payment data is contained entirely in one string and can't be fractured out.

Plus - if you're receiving public funds there is no expectation to privacy that you're getting taxpayer money. You have the right to not have your bank account and taxpayer ID doxxed but it's not going to be a secret that you got paid.

The other restraining order that will get shot down is the one about halting the payment haltings.

Almost all databases are hashed up into pieces so they can be sliced and diced for data reporting and analysis purposes. It's 100% not likely that Treasury payment data is contained entirely in one string and can't be fractured out.

I have no doubt that the hashed-up version of the database also exists....but from media reports and the court filings, DOGE was seeking access to the entirety of the federal payments system. Which would include any unhashed data.

Plus - if you're receiving public funds there is no expectation to privacy that you're getting taxpayer money. You have the right to not have your bank account and taxpayer ID doxxed but it's not going to be a secret that you got paid.

But you do have an expectation that your data won't be shared outside the agency. Because Congress passed a law saying that you do. It's like your tax returns or your medical records if you go to a VA hospital - the government has those records, but there are laws governing who they can be shared with. DOGE has to follow those laws, which silo your personally identifying information within the agency that collects them.

I have no doubt that the hashed-up version of the database also exists....but from media reports and the court filings, DOGE was seeking access to the entirety of the federal payments system. Which would include any unhashed data.

And the media never gets anything wrong, right? :)
(I have no idea what they got access to or didn't)

But you do have an expectation that your data won't be shared outside the agency.

Not necessarily. Why should it be a secret that USAID is paying for this or that? Why isn't it in the public interest that the US government is funding X or Y?

And the media never gets anything wrong, right? :)
(I have no idea what they got access to or didn't)

Remember, this order is the result of a court proceeding - not just media coverage (and I agree they often get legal issues wrong). So if the only information anywhere in the Treasury payments systems is all completely hashed and contains no personally identifiable information, they'd have the chance to show that. Because the judge ordered that they couldn't access personally identifiable information, though, it's pretty likely that Treasury wasn't able to demonstrate that to him.

But you do have an expectation that your data won't be shared outside the agency.

Not necessarily. Why should it be a secret that USAID is paying for this or that? Why isn't it in the public interest that the US government is funding X or Y?

Because there's a statute that says that the agencies have to protect your personally identifiable information. This issue arose in regards to the Treasury payments system, which is going to contain things like bank information and account numbers and things that go well beyond "Agency X is funding program Y." There's a law that says they're not allowed to share that kind of information, so you have an expectation that they won't. The IRS doesn't share your tax returns, the VA doesn't share your medical records, and Treasury doesn't (or shouldn't) let people from other agencies access a database that has your personally identifiable financial information.

Because there's a statute that says that the agencies have to protect your personally identifiable information. This issue arose in regards to the Treasury payments system, which is going to contain things like bank information and account numbers and things that go well beyond "Agency X is funding program Y." There's a law that says they're not allowed to share that kind of information, so you have an expectation that they won't. The IRS doesn't share your tax returns, the VA doesn't share your medical records, and Treasury doesn't (or shouldn't) let people from other agencies access a database that has your personally identifiable financial information.

And no one is suggesting that anything of that nature be shared. What's being shared is stuff like the Politico Pro subscription information and amounts of payment, which is all fair game.

And no one is suggesting that anything of that nature be shared. What's being shared is stuff like the Politico Pro subscription information and amounts of payment, which is all fair game.

I think we may be crossing lawsuits. I'm not aware of any orders that blocked the sharing of information about Politico Pro subscriptions. The agency would be able to tell people about things like that.

The orders here were blocking access to the Treasury's payment system, which covers about 2/3 of the entire federal government and will certainly include access to tons of personally identifiable information (unless they simply do not maintain any information that is unhashed anywhere in that system, which seems unlikely given the order). That information is required to be maintained private. Which means Treasury can't let DOGE have access to the system. If DOGE asks for information that does not involve personally identifiable information, Treasury can provide it (subject to tons of other rules not relevant here). But if they ask for access to the entire payments system, which includes PII, Treasury can't give it to them.

Well, at least under the preliminary injunction - and under a plain reading of the Privacy Act. Who knows where it eventually lands.

The orders here were blocking access to the Treasury's payment system, which covers about 2/3 of the entire federal government and will certainly include access to tons of personally identifiable information (unless they simply do not maintain any information that is unhashed anywhere in that system, which seems unlikely given the order). That information is required to be maintained private. Which means Treasury can't let DOGE have access to the system. If DOGE asks for information that does not involve personally identifiable information, Treasury can provide it (subject to tons of other rules not relevant here). But if they ask for access to the entire payments system, which includes PII, Treasury can't give it to them.

This is assuming that the data under question is the raw stuff and they were just letting the DOGE people spelunk through it all. I have no idea one way or the other.

To me, it's perfectly reasonable to ask "What does the government spend its cash on?" and then proceed to trace where all that money goes.

This is assuming that the data under question is the raw stuff and they were just letting the DOGE people spelunk through it all. I have no idea one way or the other.

Yep. Again, though, it's pretty likely that whatever DOGE was trying to get contained personal identifying information, else the order wouldn't have addressed it and ordered Treasury to stop allowing access to that type of information.

To me, it's perfectly reasonable to ask "What does the government spend its cash on?" and then proceed to trace where all that money goes.

Sure. But these cases aren't about whether it's reasonable to ask what the government spends its cash on (of course it is), but which particular data sets and systems can be accessed by whom. Look at the converse - it's also reasonable to ask "Where does the government get its cash?" without insisting on having access to the IRS' database of every individual tax return.

By all accounts, DOGE wanted to do something very different in how they collected information on how the government spends its cash. Rather than do "ordinary" audits or go through the agencies, they wanted to find that out through the Treasury payments systems. The problem is that the Treasury payments system has a lot of information in it that goes beyond "What the government spends its money on," and that information isn't permissibly shared outside of Treasury. So Treasury got enjoined, at least for now.

The President isn't in charge of setting the rules for domestic policy - that's Congress' job, for the most part. The President's power is more in foreign affairs, which aren't really the area of legislative power. 0 albaby

----------------------

I disagree with this characterization. There is nothing in the constitution that confers separate but equal status on the President but only "more in Foreign affairs."

There are enough lawsuits underway that we will get much needed SCOTUS rulings on the limits of Presidential discretion. While we wait, lets explore the spending that Congress mandates.

Lets start with Earmarks. First of all, the name. In 2022 congress gave earmarks an official name and under this new more transparent process this funding is referred to as “Congressionally Directed Spending” in the Senate and “Community Project Funding” in the House. For brevity I will use earmarks in this post.

I think the prevalence of earmarks is sufficient evidence to deduce that each earmark does get spent more or less on what was targeted and within its specified time frame. The president apparently cannot block this form of mandated earmark spending.

So I'll give you earmarks and how dare a president interfere.

Next up are the grants, thousands of them, maybe hundreds of thousands of them being issued every year. Behind each one is congressional funding. The verbiage describing the funding provides instructions to the receiving agency. But these instructions are necessarily written at a level high enough that they depend on the Executive Branch to interpret and decide the more granular aspects of implementation.

This decision making is necessary to keep the wheels of government turning and all these decisions are made by a vast cadre of the Grant Evaluators, Grant Allocators and and Grant Approvers within each agency with grant distribution responsibilities. And the cadre are all employees of the executive branch or as you like to say, not employees of but subject to managerial oversight by the Executive Branch. So right there, I believe is ample precedent establishing that the President has not been excluded from exercising Managerial oversight, oversight that remains necessary and should continue.

Thanks for listening (reading?). Now on to the flaming pyre I go.

As albaby has explained -exhaustively-, POTUS has a large influence on priorities. And, while he didn't mention it, POTUS also has the veto. - 1pg

----------------

Who doesn't know that? What you apparently don't know is that a Presidential Veto can only happen during the "pass the legislation" phase in the legislative process. Once passed, the opportunity to veto is over. What we are talking about here is the funding specified by legislation that has already passed and is therefore beyond the reach of a presidential veto.

The President's power is more in foreign affairs, which aren't really the area of legislative power.

Quibble. I believe the Senate has to ratify a treaty. Though, the executive negotiates the treaty (I believe). Once ratified, it is law.- 1pg

-------------

Treaties are only a part of Foreign policy, an important but nevertheless small part as well. It should be obvious that most of the Foreign Policy activity by the POTUS and the State department and roving congressional committees is unrelated to a treaty.

Who doesn't know that?

Apparently, several folks on the right. That's why albaby is having to explain it yet again.

What you apparently don't know is that a Presidential Veto can only happen during the "pass the legislation" phase in the legislative process. Once passed, the opportunity to veto is over.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you wrote this incorrectly. POTUS only has veto power after legislation is passed and lands on his/her desk. Then Congress can override the veto, if they have enough votes. Which, occasionally, they do. They have a better chance of getting it signed if it aligns with POTUS's priorities and/or objectives, of course. But POTUS doesn't draft it, and never really sees it until it passes both houses and ends up on his desk.

If you're talking about legislation that is passed and signed, then 'yes'...it's beyond the reach of POTUS, unless Congress puts together new legislation that addresses whatever issue someone has with the previous legislation.

This is kinda Civics 101 (no offense intended to anyone).

Treaties are only a part of Foreign policy, an important but nevertheless small part as well. It should be obvious that most of the Foreign Policy activity by the POTUS and the State department and roving congressional committees is unrelated to a treaty.

Sure. My point was that, even in foreign policy, Congress has some say. They have to ratify something for it to become law, for example. And once they do, it is law (that even future POTUS's can't just ignore). They also control the purse strings, so -just as an example- Ukraine aid is dependent on Congress. It's a foreign affairs matter, certainly. And POTUS can promise lots of tanks and Apaches. But Congress ultimately says whether or not we spend that money. No money, no toys for Ukraine. Pretty sure any trade deals have to get Congressional approval. Etc.

Congress has been shifting a lot of their responsibilities on the Executive for decades. They don't want to take a stand they can be held accountable for later. But, if it's working correctly, the POTUS shouldn't have that much power. Our Founders did not want another king. POTUS has veto power, and can use that to influence the course of America. But Congress spends the money, ratifies treaties and agreements, declares war, etc. At least, supposedly.

"Trump is acting like a King because he is too weak to govern like a president."
— Ezra Klein, New York Times, Feb 2, 2025

By all accounts, DOGE wanted to do something very different in how they collected information on how the government spends its cash. Rather than do "ordinary" audits or go through the agencies, they wanted to find that out through the Treasury payments systems. The problem is that the Treasury payments system has a lot of information in it that goes beyond "What the government spends its money on," and that information isn't permissibly shared outside of Treasury. So Treasury got enjoined, at least for now - albaby

-----------------

I just hope they can figure it out quickly so we can get back to finding waste and abuse and poor decision making. I see no reason DOGE needs PII for anything they are doing. I suspect that Treasury was taking too long for the pace of this team so DOGE just tried to go around them for expediency and not because of any particular interest in PII.

I support the laws limiting access to TPS and especially PII, so Treasury Department, get busy on a workaround. How long does it take to make a copy of the entire TPS database substituting John Smith, 123 Main Street and 999-99-9999 (you get the idea) for every morsel of PII as you make the copy. A good programmer could do it in a matter of few days days, so get on with it Treasury dept while you wait for the Judge to finish up what could end up being a long drawn out series of rulings.

MAGA, it's good for what ails you!

But POTUS doesn't draft it, and never really sees it until it passes both houses and ends up on his desk.

I’m going to quibble with that a little.

Lobbyists draft legislation all the time. I’m sure that Presidential staff does so as well.

But in either case, it takes a member of Congress to introduce that draft legislation as a bill. And then the houses of Congress amend that bill to their heart’s content.

As to seeing the bill, once introduced by a member of Congress, it becomes public. Anyone can see it - even easier today as it’s available on the internet. I’m quite sure that every President has staff that read the bills in detail and prepares briefs for the President. And every President spends time on the phone or in person with members of Congress to try to influence them to deal with legislation in the way he would prefer.

The President can be as active or as passive as he chooses to be in the legislative process. But in the end, it is Congress that must create the law and not the President.

—Peter

I just hope they can figure it out quickly so we can get back to finding waste...

They probably can't.

Just look at the federal budget (both income and out-go). Finding "waste" is going to amount to a rounding error.

I might be able to get behind an effort to root-out waste if we address the larger budget problem first. This is a distraction from the real problem, because no one wants to deal with the real problem (because ALL of the solutions will be unpopular). They're yelling "squirrel!".

...and poor decision making.

Like what? Sure, people make bad decisions all the time. I suspect a lot of decisions just wouldn't align with one political view or the other, but aren't inherently "bad". Also, most decisions will be dictated by policy and guidelines, set down by law(s) passed by Congress.

OK...I accept your quibbles (plural). :-)

But in the end, it is Congress that must create the law and not the President.

Yes. That is the key point.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.