Trump and SCOTUS are weakening the separation of powers

Last week the Supreme Court s conservative majority authorized President Donald Trump s dismantling of the U S Department of Training In another shadow docket ruling that lacks legal precedent facts or justification the court dealt an even more serious blow to separation of powers than to society development The Teaching Department was established by federal statute in to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual Congress not only created the department by federal statute but it also tasked the agency with specific priorities Funding kindergarten through th grades with over billion annually which makes up around of all inhabitants school funding running the federal attendee financial aid system which has awarded over billion a year in apprentice aid to over million students ensuring equal access to training for poor disabled and disadvantaged students administering the Individuals with Disabilities Tuition Act with special tuition services for more than million students and administering grants for students seeking college degrees or higher guidance Congress expressly prohibited the secretary of mentoring from abolishing organizational entities established in the department s founding statute without following prescribed procedures Those actions require advance notice of days to Congress which includes providing factual sponsorship and explanations for each of the proposed actions of abolishment None of those statutorily-mandated procedures were followed by the Trump administration Presidents have felt differently about the value and purpose of the Department of Training but prior to Trump all of them recognized they lacked the unilateral authority to eliminate a federal department Congress had specifically created Presidents have felt differently about the value and purpose of the Department of Learning but prior to Trump all of them recognized they lacked the unilateral authority to eliminate a federal department Congress had specifically created Not only did Congress create the Teaching Department but it also passed education-related mandates and tasked the department with carrying them out In President Reagan wished to dismantle the department and he submitted a proposal to Congress that would have done just that But after it garnered little promotion on Capitol Hill he ultimately withdrew his plan Trump in contrast appointed Linda McMahon to lead the department with a mandate to put herself out of a job in other words to eliminate the entire agency altogether When she accordingly commenced with immediate layoffs in March McMahon substantiated that her first reduction in force which cut the department s staff in half was the first step on the road to a total shutdown directed by the president Related SCOTUS backs executive lawlessness McMahon s first cuts came with employee lock outs which made it impossible for terminated staff to hand off their existing work to the department s remaining staff Like the tons of U S Agency for International Expansion food that Trump just ordered to be incinerated rather than letting it be distributed to feed people in need all the department s work that had gone into those projects was totally destroyed At a subsequent Senate subcommittee hearing on the department s budget when McMahon was urged by Democratic Sen Patty Murray of Washington if she or the department had conducted an actual analysis to determine what the effects of the reduction in force would be on the agency s statutory functions her response was simple No The Supreme Court s decision came two weeks after states received a three-sentence email from the Guidance Department advising that billion in guidance funding which was scheduled to arrive the next day was being frozen indefinitely The notice did not provide a reason According to the Impoundment Control Act of the president cannot refuse to spend funds Congress previously appropriated But Trump is claiming the act is unconstitutional and that he should have greater control over congressional spending Republicans in Congress agree with the president s interpretation On Friday morning following approval by the Senate in a party line vote the House passed rule allowing the president to claw back billion for foreign aid and constituents broadcasting Two Republicans broke ranks to oppose the measure all Democrats voted against it The bill will now go to Trump s desk for his signature Want more sharp takes on politics Sign up for our free newsletter Standing Room Only written by Amanda Marcotte now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts The Development Department s impounded funds had been earmarked by the states to provide after-school and summer programs so that students across the country would have somewhere to go while their parents are working along with adult literacy classes in-school mental fitness aid smaller class sizes for elementary schools and services for students learning English Alabama s Superintendent of Training Eric Mackey explained ABC News that Trump s funding block would hurt students with the greatest need and that the loss of funding for those rural poor high-poverty school districts makes it all that much more demanding to educate poor children in those communities For nearly years our constitutional order has been that Congress makes laws and the President faithfully executes them There is no language in the Constitution that authorizes a president to unilaterally enact amend or repeal statutes Conservative justices on the Supreme Court read history differently and selectively as they consistently bend existing statutes to satisfy Trump s will The court s decision on the Coaching Department followed a similar shadow docket ruling made just two weeks ago in Trump v American Federation of Cabinet Employees In this affair the court allowed the administration to fire tens of thousands of federal workers at different federal regime agencies the bulk of the federal executive while appeals over the firings continue We need your help to stay independent Subscribe in the modern day to advocacy Salon s progressive journalism In both cases the dissent was livid Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Development Department decision indefensible because it hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out Aside from supporting population learning in general the gist of her dissent was that allowing an executive to unilaterally dissolve a federal department expressly created by Congress poses a grave threat to the separation of powers by diminishing the role of Congress Sotomayor also called out her fellow justices When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law and then executes on that promise she wrote it is the Judiciary s duty to check that lawlessness not expedite it In addition to the fatal blow to the separation of powers the court s conservative majority has rewarded a thuggish president for his continuing pattern of latest the law first and seeking permission later Congress expressly prohibited the instruction secretary from altering functions assigned to the department by statute and barred her from abolishing organizational entities established by law But Secretary McMahon directed by the president did it anyway As the dissent put it The Executive has seized for itself the power to repeal federal law by way of mass terminations in direct contravention of the Take Care Clause and our Constitution s separation of powers The court s majority has now altered our constitutional makeup conferring on Trump the power to repeal laws by firing all employees necessary to carry them out Instead of taking care that the nation s laws are faithfully executed the court s majority has narrated Trump he can totally discard them Read more about this topic Progressive parents in Oklahoma offer blueprint to mess with MAGA censorship Too late for accountability What s the point of having a Congress Even chosen conservatives now say it s a constitutional dilemma The post Trump and SCOTUS are weakening the separation of powers appeared first on Salon com