President Trump on Tuesday called for greater authority over regulatory bodies established by Congress independent of direct White House control, part of a broader bid to centralize the president's power over the government. An order has been issued.
The order requires independent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review, preventing such agencies from expending funds on projects or efforts that are inconsistent with the president's priorities. It declares that it must assert the powers and accept the interpretation of the President and the Department of Justice as binding force of law.
“This is a movement of power over independent institutions, the structure of administration that Congress used in various functions dating back to the 1880s,” says Peter M. Shane, a resident scholar at New York University and author of A. said. A casebook on Powers' separation method.
The order follows Trump's summary shooting of independent leaders, ignoring laws that prohibit removal without reason before conditions rise. Collectively, the move constitutes a major front in his efforts to seize some of Congress' constitutional forces against the president's attacks on the fundamental form of the US government and its constitutional force.
The directive applies to the various administrative bodies that Congress has established and empowered to regulate aspects of the economy, and structured so that it is run by staff appointed by the president to fixed terms, but that day does not directly control the behavior of the
These bodies include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission. Still, the order covers issues related to Wall Street oversight and regulation, but only partially part of the Federal Reserve, a particularly strong institution that exempts decisions related to monetary policy, such as interest rate cuts. Applies to it.
Trump's orders are built on a set of directives issued in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, and require agencies to submit proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget. did. However, the order did not apply to Congressional sessions set to be independent from the White House.
Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University, said there should be no legal controversy over the requirement for an order that independent agencies consult with the White House about their regulatory plans. Under the Constitution, the President said that he may “request a written opinion” of senior officials in relation to their office duties.
But Professor Strauss suggests that other aspects are that, even if Congress says, Trump believes he has the authority to direct the actions of the institution. There is. Professor Strauss argued that it crossed the line in what was a mainstream understanding of the constitution.
The order declared that White House Director of Management and Budget Russell T. Vert could withhold funding for projects or initiatives that contradict Trump's policies and priorities.
Specifically, Vought, by any necessary and appropriate activity, function, project or object, to advance the President's policies and priorities, including banning funds from consuming such a thing. He said he has the power to adjust the allocation of institutions. Trump doesn't like the matter.
That power has sought to limit the agency's ability to spend the funds they have allocated for use, the order says. However, another section of the order states that agencies must accept the views of Trump and Pam Bondy's Attorney General as to the meaning of the law.
“Employees in the administrative division acting in official capacity cannot advance interpretation of the law as a US position that violates the opinion of the President or Attorney General on matters of law., guidance and advances in litigation. “Position” without permission.”
Trump took the stance that the 1974 law, the Water Storage Management Act, was unconstitutional. Under that law, Congress limited the president's ability to refuse lawmakers to spend money allocated for programs the president didn't like.
The Justice Department has sought to establish that it can speak for the administrator before the Supreme Court. However, Congress is also due to the statutes that certain agencies are given independent litigation authorities. The Trump administration clearly seems to be trying to bring a clear end to the agency's ability to decide what position it should take even in lower courts.
Since taking office, Trump has already challenged the key legal boards of independent agencies by immediately firing the heads of such organizations. It violates laws enacted by the Congress and protects them from arbitrary termination, such officials are removed before the conditions arise only for justice reasons such as fraud. It says there is a possibility.
For example, he told NLRB members that “members of the law may be removed by the President on notices and hearings, due to their obligations or neglect of misconduct.” I ignored it. It's the office, but for no other reason.”
He also rejected a government lawyer who led an independent watchdog protecting whistleblowers despite similar laws. The judge ordered officials to recover temporarily, and the Trump administration sued the Supreme Court.
Last week, Sarah M. Harris, the Department of Justice's representative attorney general, wrote in a letter to Congress that she would not defend the constitutionality of laws that restrict the firing of members of independent bodies before their term rises.
Harris wrote that it should not be interpreted as allowing Congress to enact laws that “prevent proper supervision of the principals of the administrative department that enforce the law on behalf of the President.” Ta. She added that the Trump administration will try to ensure the Supreme Court does not overturn the 1935 precedent.
Ending the independence of such institutions and integrating power over them in the White House has long been the purpose of a conservative legal movement, which aims to reduce regulations. It is seen as a rule imposed on strong business interests.
However, the movement lacks the vote to persuade Congress to simply withdraw the decree and abolish or reduce such institutions. Instead, since the Reagan administration, conservative lawyers have developed and promoted an ideology known as integrated enforcement theory. Under that, the Constitution should be reinterpreted so that Congress does not create a pocket of independence from direct presidential control within the government.
