This is a do-or-die lawsuit by the Democrats who are risking consequences if they lose. This lawsuit concerns Presidential Powers, and you can bet this case will go to the Supreme Court. The Democrats say that the president has no power over any agencies. That would mean we would have a fourth branch of government in our country. The Legislative, the Executive, the Judicial, and the bureaucratic agencies. The agencies could then create any regulations or rules they decide to impose. Mind you, there is no mention of agencies having powers. The first three articles of the Constitution spell out the three branches and their powers.
This would be blatantly unconstitutional. You would have a bunch of unelected officials passing laws without consent from Congress or the President.
Read an overview of Article II:
Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Executive Vesting Clause, in Section 1, Clause 1, provides that the federal executive power is vested in the President. Section 3 of Article II further requires the President to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
1 The executive power thus consists of the authority to enforce laws and to appoint the agents charged with the duty of such enforcement.
2 The President also has distinct authority over foreign affairs, and alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.
3 As a general matter, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution vests the President not only with the authorities expressly delineated therein, but also with certain implied authorities,4 such as the ability to supervise (and generally to remove) executive officials5 and the power to recognize foreign governments.6 At the same time, the Court has said that by granting the President the power of faithfully executing the laws, the Constitution refutes the idea
that the President was intended to be a lawmaker.
7 Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that officials appointed by the President—even those located within the Executive Branch—may exercise regulatory or adjudicative powers that are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial.8 Broadly, the Court has recognized that Executive Officers exercise authority to enforce and administer the laws, including rulemaking, administrative determinations, and the filing of lawsuits.9
The lawsuit states:
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL“DNC, DSCC, and DCCC also all rely on impartial guidance from the FEC for virtually everything they do—soliciting contributions, making expenditures and other disbursements, coordinating campaign activity, and reporting to the Commission. Their ability to solicit rulemakings and advisory opinions and to file or defend against complaints will be severely impaired if those requests are to be resolved under the binding legal interpretations of a political opponent instead of a bipartisan commission of experts.”
“The Constitution vests all executive power in the President and charges him with faithfully executing the laws. Since it would be impossible for the President to single-handedly perform all the executive business of the Federal Government, the Constitution also provides for subordinate officers to assist the President in his executive duties. In the exercise of their often-considerable authority, these executive branch officials remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision and control.”
By Article II’s pronouncements, a president could close down any agencies that were created.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a letter to the court:
“In short, a fired Special Counsel is wielding executive power, over the elected Executive’s objection, to halt employment decisions made by other executive agencies.”
