So, the new session of the Supreme Court starts today… and one of the things they’re eventually going to be deciding on is … well, I forgot what it’s called. But it’s in relation to President Trump being able to fire employees of Federal “commissions.”
The interesting thing is that there is absolutely nothing within the U.S. Constitution that defines a Federal Commission. There’s nothing that grants the constitutionality of it either. Congress has created several commissions over the past ~100+ years, but technically, these commissions are being granted self-governance and self-governing authority. Trump’s argument is that this directly violates Article 2 of the Constitution which grants the execution of the government to the executive branch.
There is a VERY good chance that if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, that it could set precedent for (or actually eliminating) the creation of these commissions (like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, FCC, etc.).
I’m torn on this… I think it was a means of diverting some power from the presidency, but Congress needs to learn to do a better job… and not abdicate their authority to things like this. Not sure how I feel… but it could get really crazy in 2026.
So, the new session of the Supreme Court starts today… and one of the things they’re eventually going to be deciding on is … well, I forgot what it’s called. But it’s in relation to President Trump being able to fire employees of Federal “commissions.”
The interesting thing is that there is absolutely nothing within the U.S. Constitution that defines a Federal Commission. There’s nothing that grants the constitutionality of it either. Congress has created several commissions over the past ~100+ years, but technically, these commissions are being granted self-governance and self-governing authority. Trump’s argument is that this directly violates Article 2 of the Constitution which grants the execution of the government to the executive branch.
There is a VERY good chance that if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, that it could set precedent for (or actually eliminating) the creation of these commissions (like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, FCC, etc.).
I’m torn on this… I think it was a means of diverting some power from the presidency, but Congress needs to learn to do a better job… and not abdicate their authority to things like this. Not sure how I feel… but it could get really crazy in 2026.
No idea how SCOTUS will side on this but, my concern is that a future POTUS will take us 180 degrees in the advancements this President has and is trying to make happen. IOWs, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
I was under the impression that commissions were created by the Executive Branch. I see no reason a commission can't be eliminated by the Executive Branch.
There are three branches of the government. All parts of the government must be in one of those branches. There is no such thing as an "independent" branch of government. If such a thing existed it would constitute a fourth branch of the government which is unconstitutional. Congress has gotten away with creating these independent branches because there has been no serious challenges to them.
I see SCOTUS as having no choice in this matter. They cannot allow a fourth branch of government. They can either declare those branches unconstitutional and dissolve them or rule that they are actually part of one of the three enumerated branches.
I was under the impression that commissions were created by the Executive Branch. I see no reason a commission can't be eliminated by the Executive Branch.
No, technically, all "formal" government departments and agencies must be created by Congress. There's some exception where the President can create a sub office (complete with logos and director), but I can't remember what the limitations are. Like... you can have the Department of the Interior, which then has many sub agencies like the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and like... Bureau of Land Managment... but then you can have a third tier "office" under the Department of Fish and Wildlife, something like the Office of Trout Preservation (or some **** , I can't remember)... in that case, the office is created by the President, but everything above that has to formally be created by Congress. The president just gets to nominate the leader of those organizations... but technically he has the authority to fire all of them (traditionally hte president has, but there have been a lot of non-constitutional injunctions).
No idea how SCOTUS will side on this but, my concern is that a future POTUS will take us 180 degrees in the advancements this President has and is trying to make happen. IOWs, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Rams
This has always screwed the Democrats... like when they used the Nuclear Option in the Senate which no one had used before... and now it gets used every time. It's literally been used to create an effective super-majority in the Supreme Court, and gets used to pass almost all controversial budget bills.
The list is endless... but yeah, it does return some authority to the President... but it's authority that Congress has abdicated and should not have.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Congress has gotten away with creating these independent branches because there has been no serious challenges to them.
The only commissions that Congress can create are internal commissions. Such as the ? Banking Commission, Intelligence Commission, Judicial Commission, etc.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: But it’s in relation to President Trump being able to fire employees of Federal “commissions.”
I think it is the insiders on the Commissions who are suing to stop their elimination.
There are three branches of the government. All parts of the government must be in one of those branches. There is no such thing as an "independent" branch of government. If such a thing existed it would constitute a fourth branch of the government which is unconstitutional. Congress has gotten away with creating these independent branches because there has been no serious challenges to them.
I see SCOTUS as having no choice in this matter. They cannot allow a fourth branch of government. They can either declare those branches unconstitutional and dissolve them or rule that they are actually part of one of the three enumerated branches.
Feel free to enlighten me if I'm incorrect.
These commissions were created by Congress by some bill(s) over time. Those bills were signed off by whoever was POTUS at the time. Those commissions were created by Congress because they deal with issues (science) our elected leadership is not qualified to judge or make intelligent/informed decisions on. But, similar to trying to drive a herd of cats, it's almost impossible to do if given the authority to regulate. Unfortunately, Congress and past Presidents didn't have the foresight to actually put those commissions under a specific control and gave some of them the ability to regulate versus advise.
In the case of the Federal Reserve lady the President wants to de-throne, I'm not in agreement, she has not been found guilty, only accused. If found guilty, the gallows is always available. As previously stated, I'm not sure how SCOTUS will come down on this but, this is a path that must be navigated with care. Where will this lead us in the future?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: No, technically, all "formal" government departments and agencies must be created by Congress. There's some exception where the President can create a sub office (complete with logos and director), but I can't remember what the limitations are. Like... you can have the Department of the Interior, which then has many sub agencies like the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and like... Bureau of Land Managment... but then you can have a third tier "office" under the Department of Fish and Wildlife, something like the Office of Trout Preservation (or some **** , I can't remember)... in that case, the office is created by the President, but everything above that has to formally be created by Congress. The president just gets to nominate the leader of those organizations... but technically he has the authority to fire all of them (traditionally hte president has, but there have been a lot of non-constitutional injunctions).
Think about what you are implying.
quote
There's some exception where the President can create a sub office (complete with logos and director), but I can't remember what the limitations are.
You seem to be implying that a President can adulterate a Congressional Commission. Congress makes laws, not policy. A President only signs a law or vetos it.
This is an interesting post. I suppose/believe a President did not create the IRS.
Originally posted by cliffw: The only commissions that Congress can create are internal commissions. Such as the ? Banking Commission, Intelligence Commission, Judicial Commission, etc.
I think it is the insiders on the Commissions who are suing to stop their elimination.
You are getting hung up on the word commission. It is broadly used. This thread is misnamed because the word is so widely used when it actually is about "independent" agencies. Yes, Congress does form special purpose commission which are part of the legislative branch. Two of the independent agencies that come to mind with commission as part of the their name is the Federal Communications Commission and the Security and Exchange Commission.
Yes, two insiders sued but they only sued because President Trump fired them. No other president has done that before. In doing that President Trump is challenging the independence of these agencies. POTUS is claiming they are part of his branch therefore he can fire them. The plaintiffs are pointing to the law passed by congress claiming that it is illegal for POTUS to fire them.
These commissions were created by Congress by some bill(s) over time. Those bills were signed off by whoever was POTUS at the time. Those commissions were created by Congress because they deal with issues (science) our elected leadership is not qualified to judge or make intelligent/informed decisions on. But, similar to trying to drive a herd of cats, it's almost impossible to do if given the authority to regulate. Unfortunately, Congress and past Presidents didn't have the foresight to actually put those commissions under a specific control and gave some of them the ability to regulate versus advise.
In the case of the Federal Reserve lady the President wants to de-throne, I'm not in agreement, she has not been found guilty, only accused. If found guilty, the gallows is always available. As previously stated, I'm not sure how SCOTUS will come down on this but, this is a path that must be navigated with care. Where will this lead us in the future?
Rams
Where this will lead us is a constitutional form of government. These independent agencies have no accountability to the American people. We can't vote them out of office. Even our elected leaders have limited ability to remove members of these independent agencies.
While these laws were passed by previous congresses and signed by previous presidents, they cannot bind the actions of future congresses and presidents. Any laws that does that is unconstitutional. For example, today's Republican congress can't make an independent agency in charge of paper weights and also write into law that future congresses cannot remove the agency and future presidents can't fire anyone in the agency.
You seem to be implying that a President can adulterate a Congressional Commission. Congress makes laws, not policy. A President only signs a law or vetos it.
This is an interesting post. I suppose/believe a President did not create the IRS.
Well, we should be clear what we mean when we say what a President can do.
There's a difference between what a President has historically done, and what a President should legally be doing.
The President can more or less create offices under a sub office. But congress formally creates all the agencies, departments, and organizations. As well as the Federal commissions (not talking about Trump creating a "committee of people" that he refers to as a commission).
Where this will lead us is a constitutional form of government. These independent agencies have no accountability to the American people. We can't vote them out of office. Even our elected leaders have limited ability to remove members of these independent agencies.
While these laws were passed by previous congresses and signed by previous presidents, they cannot bind the actions of future congresses and presidents. Any laws that does that is unconstitutional. For example, today's Republican congress can't make an independent agency in charge of paper weights and also write into law that future congresses cannot remove the agency and future presidents can't fire anyone in the agency.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Well, we should be clear what we mean when we say what a President can do.
There's a difference between what a President has historically done, and what a President should legally be doing.
The President can more or less create offices under a sub office. But congress formally creates all the agencies, departments, and organizations. As well as the Federal commissions (not talking about Trump creating a "committee of people" that he refers to as a commission).
Understood, my real concern is that decisions made today set the stage for someone like A.O.C. who could conceivably be POTUS someday. That scares the hell out of me.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-06-2025).]
Understood, my real concern is that decisions made today set the stage for someone like A.O.C. who could conceivably be POTUS someday. That scares the hell out of me.
Rams
Yeah, I meant to reply to that, but 100%... I guess it creates a more dynamic government... but she still can't violate constitutional law, and cannot arbitrarily hire new people for which there's no budget to support. So, Congress will still have to approve financially anything a theoretical AOC would do.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: But congress formally creates all the agencies, departments, and organizations. As well as the Federal commissions (not talking about Trump creating a "committee of people" that he refers to as a commission).
Does not Congress need Presidential approval for every action it takes ?
Does not Congress need Presidential approval for every action it takes ?
I mean, I'd imagine the president (at the time) was the original requestor for every single agency or organization, and they made it happen. But of course they could do it anyway if they had 2/3rds majority. I'm not aware of any that were created though.
The problem is that they never go away. The executive branch has over 1,000 agencies and departments... more than half are redundant.
Yeah, I meant to reply to that, but 100%... I guess it creates a more dynamic government... but she still can't violate constitutional law, and cannot arbitrarily hire new people for which there's no budget to support. So, Congress will still have to approve financially anything a theoretical AOC would do.
Typically, when the tide comes in, it brings a lot of trash with it. If, a far left person like AOC, Schiff or any of the others were to be elected as POTUS, it's very likely Congress would also be flooded/overwhelmed with the same garbage. The pendulum usually swings and it's very possible. Just my opinion but, I'm sticking to it.
Typically, when the tide comes in, it brings a lot of trash with it. If, a far left person like AOC, Schiff or any of the others were to be elected as POTUS, it's very likely Congress would also be flooded/overwhelmed with the same garbage. The pendulum usually swings and it's very possible. Just my opinion but, I'm sticking to it.
Rams
Hahah... I'd not heard that one before... but so true.
