← Back to context

Comment by kardianos

2 days ago

I actually believe the executive branch should actually control the executive branch.

The presidency is not a monarchy! The president might be commander-in-chief but it can’t just order random people killed just because he is “in charge” of the military. There are laws and layers of control saying who can do what. These laws are on the books and are being completely ignored!

Most of this power is vested in congress whom is abdicating their power.

  • In a sense, I agree.

    The president should not be able to declare war without an act of Congress. The constitution grants the power to make law to congress, but then congress has enacted many laws which create agencies under the executive branch, which in turns empowers the executive branch.

    So I agree that Congress should make/repeal laws that reduce the size of the executive branch so that only necessary powers are entrusted to the executive branch.

    However, until that day comes, the separation of powers is the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Within the executive, inward looking (not external like killing people), yeah, the president and his appointed cabinet should have control. Without that control, you are defining an unaccountable form of government.

    • > So I agree that Congress should make/repeal laws that reduce the size of the executive branch so that only necessary powers are entrusted to the executive branch.

      This is essentially what the courts are doing through the interrogation of the limits of the offices power. If that’s what you are looking for it’s already WAI.

I, on the other hand, would prefer the executive branch to have a modicum of process and transparency when trying to access private information, as opposed to learning of things a week after the fact from leaks.

Then you should likewise believe that the legislative branch should continue to determine how funds are allocated, and which agencies and departments are created and continue to function.

Let's not be disingenuous.

  • I don't think these two things necessarily go hand in hand. If the head of the executive branch should have absolute control over the branch, as the above user suggested, then if congress wants to control government agencies that are currently in the executive branch, those agencies should be placed outside of the executive into a different category that is either under the legislative branch or shared with the executive. In the status quo, all of the large government agencies being cut by DOGE are technically under the executive.

    • The Constitution does not provide for agencies in the legislative branch with power over the executive branch. Congress itself does have power over the executive, but mainly in that only it can pass laws, only it can raise revenue, only it can appropriate funds for expenditure, and, of course, only it can impeach executive officers and the president. Congress does not have the power to limit the president's executive orders to the executive branch agencies, for example.

      1 reply →

  • The U.S. Digital Service (which is what DOGE actually is) does have a budget allocated by Congress.

    DOGE is finding monies are being spent without Congressional authorization, and is stopping that, exactly as you asked for. The president is also stopping expenditures that are allocated by Congress -- many presidents have done this.