Department of Education going back to work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you looked at the constitution, you would see that Article I is first, not Article II. The power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the president or Russ Vought. Sorry not sorry.

The agencies are tun by the executive. So Trump can't just start up use funds for new agencies. But he can spend less than authorized.

No, he can't. That's illegal.

+1. Impoundment. Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are the types of rulings that just have people ignoring judges. You had your fun and did your damage, now you're going to get pushed aside.

Let me see if I’m tracking.

Congress votes on and creates the Department of Ed. Carter signed it. Schoolhouse Rock in Action.
Congress funds the Department of Education
Trump says..nah, I’m drafting an EO, not consulting Congress, but me, myself and I, shall anct like an 1600# king and getting rid of it.
Courts say: but Congress created it and funds it, so you need an Act of Congress to get rid of it
Trump throws ketchup

And you think the problem here is… the Courts that say, essentially, fine. Get rid of it. BUT Congress passed a law creating it, so Congress needs to pass the law getting rid of it? The Courts are the problem? Not King Trump?

Oh boy. You know, if you don’t want people to think MAGAs are morons— don’t be a moron.

And take 5th grade civics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Yes. This is Con Law 101

Also, can the executive staff and de staff? Only within the boundaries of the budget passed by… wait for it. CONGRESS. If Congress says IEPs must be enforced and funds it then no, Trump can’t decide to destaff it/ not fund it. Impoundment.

You know, if Biden pulled this sh*t, y’all would be making 1/6 look like a a training exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Democrats feel they should run the executive branch regardless of election results.

No, Democrats believe the President should follow laws and federal employment regulations. Big difference!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are the types of rulings that just have people ignoring judges. You had your fun and did your damage, now you're going to get pushed aside.

These are the types of posts that confirm MAGA are morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first sentence of Article II of the U.S. Constitution is "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America".

Now read the rest of it...

Thats asking a lot....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol….utterly useless imbeciles. Our education system is an embarrassment and lord only knows what these hapless Feds actually do during the 10 hours a week they show up for work

Elon....that you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

[Anonymous]

So now they're just going to be put on administrative leave...and paid to do nothing? This is really sad - he is personally turning government into the waste of money he's always said it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.

So a future President can reduce Department of Defense personnel to 0?

[Anonymous]

Congress votes on and creates the Department of Ed. Carter signed it. Schoolhouse Rock in Action

Now we see the reason: Trump hates Lolly and his adverbs. From the first time he heard it, Trump swore to avenge his ear drums.