Hacker News
points by fabian2k 2 days ago | 0 comments
They could have passed a law to shut down USAID, that would have been the proper, legal way to do this. They didn't. The executive legally can't do whatever they want, but the Republicans in the legislative simply stood by and cheered while the administration trampled over their legislative responsibilities and powers.
[–] rayiner 2 days ago
It’s more complicated than that. You have to read the specific statutes in question to see what they require or don’t require.

The USAID-related litigation has largely been unsuccessful because the appropriations bills don’t necessarily require USAID to do particular programs. Most of the appropriations bills appropriate money for the State department.

[–] jeremyjh 2 days ago
That is not true. Funds are not allocated "for the State department". There is a statutory purpose for every allocated dollar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50261784#50265886

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
As I understand it, under the "unitary executive theory" the executive can legally do whatever it wants.
[–] rayiner 2 days ago
No, the executive can’t do whatever it wants. But if the executive can do it, then the President must be able to do it. In principle you can have a unitary executive that’s also very weak.

The first line of Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The first three articles all start with a similar line. For the legislature and Supreme Court, everyone understands that the powers of those branches can only be exercised by the constitutionally designated actors. Congress can’t create a law that creates bodies within the judiciary staffed by employees that exercises power independently of Article III judges. Similarly, Congress can’t create independent agencies within the executive that can exercise executive power independently of the President.

[–] SpicyLemonZest 2 days ago
This article isn't about that, though? USAID was never designated as an independent agency. But it was a statutory agency, which means that the President was required to run it according to its statutory structure.

Congress still directs the President, for example, to operate a Food and Drug Administration in coordination with the HHS secretary and the commissioner of food and drugs. All three of them have broad authority to direct its operations and efforts as they see fit. But they may not decide to stop regulating food and drugs entirely, nor recruit a toadie from Elon Musk as a sin-eater to make that decision.

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
I was responding to the following comment:

> I understand it, under the "unitary executive theory" the executive can legally do whatever it wants.

You’re right that this doesn’t have to do with the unitary executive. That’s my point. It’s about things like the impoundment control act.

[–] estearum 2 days ago
And to be clear, they couldn't have passed that law because doing so would be extremely unpopular. I.e. they would not have been able to gain the required support for their actions.