Constitution designates no such boss. It provides for checks and balances of three branches: executive, legislative and judiciary. This guy acts like the King of a country more than a democratically elected official. The last thing we need to do is let him abuse more power.
-
-
-
Those words like "executive" mean something, they aren't just symmetric branches doing the same thing. "Executive" means boss, with the power to hire and fire government employees.
-
It's an executive branch, not person. There's no CEO.
-
You are either extremely ignorant or a malicious liar. Either way, you are blocked you sick fuck. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii …
-
Wow dude, way to lose your shit, you came out of that one looking like the grown up
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Unfortunately there’s far too much revolving door behavior between the civil services/private companies and other branches of the govt. Admin state is still far too strong. Overturning Chevron might help reduce the power of the unelected bureaucrats
-
Chevron deference is indeed a big part of the problem, but most of the problem is caused by our anti-democratic and anti-constitutional civil service laws.
-
Agreed, but it’s all part of the “beltway” culture that grants extreme deference to the so called “wisdom” of career bureaucrats. The “for cause” requirement effectively neuters the ability of a president to change policy in a meaningful way. Eg: Trump vs the “Resistance”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m Imagining what a dem in office would do with that.
-
A Dem POTUS wouldn't do nearly as much. 90%+ of DC area civilian government employees are Dems, most of the rest too leftist to be Dem.
-
Good point. I don’t foresee the reform, but it would be great then.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Senior positions this high up are all appointed, and serve at the pleasure of the president- they can get fired at his very whim. No justifications required. Nothing to do with civil servants...
-
These aren't the positions I refer to. I'm talking about the permanent unelected positions, our anti-democratic civil "servants", many of whom are behaving seditiously (incl. failure to follow instructions) against their current constitutional executive & his appointees.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Dude, you need to get a grip. Trump is unqualified and doesn’t understand basic policy let alone civil service law. What do you expect? Your fanaticism for the right is troubling. It feels like you should get out more.
-
Unqualified? Lacks basic understanding? Check your grip, sir. Nick is not fanatical - being able to fire bad employees is a very basic capability that any executive should possess. Trump needs to be able to trust his staff to at least not undermine his administration. Basic.
-
Well I was blocked for questioning
@NickSzabo4 I stated Donald Trump was unqualified and lacks basic understanding. Haven’t read anything to change my mind. Since I can’t reread the original tweet to revalidate my points I will concede a boss should be able to fire insubordinates
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Civil services employees should NOT be allowed to unionize! They should be stripped of this “right” and be judged on their merit and not tenure and politics like everyone else in the real world
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Excellent idea, good reason to keep the House republican.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.