558
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Definitely no conflict of interest here or anything!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I will never understand how a president can have powers to change any government agency, any aspect of life, change international policy.

So, there are two types of "rules" in the US.

  • The first is what in the US are called "laws" or "legislation". In the UK, this is called "primary legislation". This stuff is written by the legislature. The President can't change this stuff.

  • The second is what in the US are called "regulations". In the US, this is called "secondary legislation". This stuff is written by the Executive Branch, which can change it. By convention, generally Presidents don't jump in and fiddle with it, but they can tell the Executive Branch to do whatever they want. Basically, Trump is ignoring a lot of convention surrounding what Presidents don't touch. You could argue that maybe we should change the system to permit for certain things -- like, I can maybe see an argument for the Federal Reserve to have some kind of aspect outside Presidential authority, because there are political incentives to fiddle with it the interest rate around elections -- but as things stand, that probably would require a constitutional amendment, which is pretty hard to get through in the US.

For international policy, that's pretty much the Executive. The Senate has to approve of treaties, but most of what we do internationally is the Executive Branch.

any aspect of life

I mean, they can't. There are a lot of restrictions on what a President can do.

  1. Federalism. There are areas where the states have exclusive authority, and the federal government -- not just the President -- can't involve themselves in those. That's why Trump has tried to argue that he should be able to withhold federal funds contingent on states doing what he wants, because the states aren't doing so on their own. I'm skeptical that he's going to have a lot of luck with this in the courts. In the past, Congress -- which is on much firmer ground than the President when it comes to claiming ability to distribute funds -- has managed successfully to use the power of the purse sometimes (e.g. in getting state drinking ages up by withholding highway funds), but has also had its wings clipped, as with the health insurance mandate a while back.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse

    The power of the purse has also been used to compel the U.S. states to pass laws, in cases where Congress does not have the desire or constitutional power to make it a federal matter. The most well-known example of this is regarding the drinking age, where Congress passed a law to withhold 10% of federal funds for highways in any state that did not raise the age to 21. The law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the South Dakota v. Dole case. Congress was not allowed to change the drinking age directly because the 21st Amendment (which ended Prohibition in the U.S.) gave control of alcohol to the states. In 2009, Congress considered similar legislation regarding texting while driving.

    This power was curtailed somewhat in a case regarding the Affordable Care Act, in which the Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that the law's withholding of all existing Medicaid funding for states that failed or refused to expand their Medicaid programs to cover the uninsured poor was "unduly coercive", despite the fact that the federal government would pay the entirety of the states' expansion for the first years, and 90% thereafter. It was left unclear what percentage would be considered acceptable.

  2. Separation of powers across branches. The Constitution only hands out certain authorities to the Executive Branch. Within the Executive Branch, the President has a pretty free hand, but only within that.

One major benefit Trump has right now is that Congress generally is onboard with what he's doing -- the Republican Party holds a trifecta, control of all three of the Presidency, House, and Senate, so a lot of the restrictions that a President might normally face aren't really there unless he does something that his own party really doesn't like. The common case is that the "other" party has control of at least one, so can usually block a lot of actions.

  1. Some actions by the federal government are simply prohibited by the Constitution.

But the federal regulations, including auto safety standards...those are federal and in the province of the Executive Branch, so if Trump wants to have them changed, he probably can do it unless some change actually violates the Constitution. If the President wants to listen to Some Random Person, like Musk, as to what to do, he can do that too.

this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
558 points (99.1% liked)

News

39833 readers
4485 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on. Keep on-topic


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS