FCC Chair Suggests Agency Isn't Independent, Word Cut From Mission Statement (axios.com) 110
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in his Wednesday Senate testimony that the agency he governs "is not an independent agency, formally speaking." Axios: During his testimony, the word "independent" was removed from the FCC's mission statement on its website. The extraordinary statement speaks to a broader trend of regulatory agencies losing power to the executive branch during the Trump era. Last week, the Supreme Court appeared poised to allow President Trump to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission during oral arguments over the issue.
Sen. Ben Ray LujÃn (D-N.M.) began the line of questioning, citing the FCC's website, which said the agency was independent as of Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, the FCC's mission statement no longer said it was independent. Chairman Carr would not respond directly to questions about whether he believed the president was his boss. He would not answer whether it's appropriate if the president were to pressure him to go after media companies. He suggested the president has the power to fire him and other FCC commissioners.
Sen. Ben Ray LujÃn (D-N.M.) began the line of questioning, citing the FCC's website, which said the agency was independent as of Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, the FCC's mission statement no longer said it was independent. Chairman Carr would not respond directly to questions about whether he believed the president was his boss. He would not answer whether it's appropriate if the president were to pressure him to go after media companies. He suggested the president has the power to fire him and other FCC commissioners.
Re: (Score:3)
when is the us getting regime change?
When it's profitable to the already rich. Duh.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
In around a year, when the Congress shifts to the other party and actual government oversight begins again.
Re: (Score:1)
youre such a loser with your ai posts lol
merry christmas asshole
Re:Independent from whom? (Score:5, Informative)
Independent doesn’t mean what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the job of Congress before the Republican members sacrificed their symbolic testicles at the altar of their King.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Independent from whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
So "independent" agency really does mean the president can't use the agency to extort companies into punishing his "enemies"? Good to know... now how do we enforce that distinction?
Republicans will fight for it - when a Democrat is in office. Note that I'm not declaring that Democrats are definitely better, but more that Republicans aren't thinking the statement below through. Congressional Republicans are okay abdicating their authority and responsibility now, under Trump, but probably not so much when they're no longer in power, especially if (when) they lose the House and Senate in 2026 and the White House in 2028.
The extraordinary statement speaks to a broader trend of regulatory agencies losing power to the executive branch during the Trump era.
Republicans aren't thinking ahead and may just have to suffer through learning what things like the following mean: "reap what you've sown", "good for the goose, good for the gander", "what goes around, comes around", etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that would never happen, and the SC if necessary would make sure.
The laws are bought and paid for by Republicans now.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they expect the Supreme Court to back them up all all the court challenges made to Democratic rule.
Just wait, they won't let a Democratic president have nearly the same power as Trump has. Neither with the Democrat try to grab unconstitutional power.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's Congress's responsibility to protect their turf. They delegated this regulatory authority to the administrative, so they get to conduct oversight of that authority.
Which means that if you want to actually see functional government oversight, DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC is part of the executive branch. Who was confused the FCC was independent?
Well, the answer to that seems pretty easy. I am surprised you didn't catch it yourself and needed to be told. The answer is: the FCC. As evidenced by the fact that it had "independent" in its mission statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly FCC, now it knows better!
As evidenced by the fact that is no longer has "independent" in its mission statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Neat how decades or centuries of precedent, law, and reality can be altered just by editing some words on a website.
Re: (Score:2)
The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.
Re: (Score:2)
The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.
Is not? Or you want it not to be?
I saw you posted this same sentiment earlier in the discussion, and then followed it with a statement that the regulatory bureaucracy should be made a co-equal 4th branch by changing the Constitution. If your above statement is true, then why would we need to change the Constitution to make it true?
Which of the men who framed the Constitution wrote arguments in favor of creating segments of government which have the power to regulate the people's daily lives, but are indepen
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it's not.
Our government was set up with 3 and only 3 co-equal branches of government, not 4, not 5, not 67.
The civil service is part of the executive branch.
Thanks for playing and learn your civics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And naked arms on his lady! Criticized by the same people always yammering on about the Right to Bare Arms.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Michelle Obama tried to get kids to eat healthier and exercise more - and got roasted by some on The Right. (but they're cool with RFK, Jr and all of MAHA)
At this point I’m fine with all this (Score:4, Insightful)
However, it had better be a *permanent* change. If the supreme court allows Trump a bunch of extra powers and immediately yanks them back when the next liberal president shows up, I have a big problem with that. So, the right-wingers that crave a king, be careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean they are literally doing everything they can to make sure it's permanent. To the point they want people to tattle on their neighbors for not thinking like them.
Yeah...you're fine with it. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Robert's court has already laid out how it doesn't have to oblige stare decisis. If you read what Alito and Thomas have written into some of their recent opinions they're actually laying out their case and call to actions to overturn previous precedents (Alito called out Obergefell and Thomas left a nugget of a legal concept for (imo intentionally) Judge Cannon to dismiss the Mara Lago documents case.
There's a strong executive until Congress decides there shouldn't be and I hope they finally do it afte
Re: (Score:3)
If society wants to return to the âoestrong executiveâ model, fine, whatever. Thatâ(TM)s what we had before Nixon. Returning to it wonâ(TM)t demolish our democracy.
You can't demolish what doesn't exist [bbc.com], but you can play games to fool rubes into thinking it does so that you can make good use of their idiocy.
If the supreme court allows Trump a bunch of extra powers and immediately yanks them back when the next liberal president shows up, I have a big problem with that.
You should have big problems with it in the first place. Allowing Dear Leader to do whatever he wants is bad no matter what party he belongs to.
Realtime memory hole (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you playing stupid games centered around the word "independent", I will suspend disbelief and assume you are simply ignorant of what the word means [wikipedia.org] in context.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what do you think other people mean by independent? You keep saying that people are getting it wrong, but then you link to a wikipedia page that says that it means what everyone thinks it means - that the President somehow magically lost control over his subordinates.
According to the Constitution, the President is the executive branch. Everyone else in the executive is his subordinate, using powers delegated by the one elected official. (Yes, I know, the vice president has a teeny tiny little sli
Re: (Score:3)
*Sigh* you either didn't read the wiki or didn't understand it, not only because you think it corroborates what people think, but also because you happen to be one of the people who is getting this wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one of us clearly didn't understand it. I've made my case. What's yours?
Re: (Score:2)
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Re: (Score:2)
Independent regulatory agencies have been delegated substantial rulemaking authority by Congress. As such, these quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions do not constitute "executive Power" and control by the office of the President can be limited. See Humphrey's Executor v. United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Unaccountable (Score:1, Troll)
"Independent" has become a euphemism for "unaccountable" particularly to the people. Yet such agencies are allowed to make decisions that affect the people with impunity. That's not how things are supposed to work in a republic (which we are) let alone a democracy (which we aren't).
Re: (Score:2)
You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.
"Independent" does not mean unaccountable to the people. The President is independent of Congress, and vice versa, but both are accountable to the people. Well, the current president doesn't seem to think so, but legally he is.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.
That's likely the "Founding Era" use of the terms. In modern terms it would read "That's not how things are supposed to work in a representative democracy (which we are) let alone a direct democracy (which we aren't)."
Said that, in the representative democracy system (read: Founding Era "republic"), elected representatives are by design independent during their term in office and only answer to the people at the time of election. This makes representatives effectively unaccountable during their term and onl
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been a 4th branch of government (Score:1)
Agencies have always been under the authority of the Executive branch, why is this an issue?
Do people prefer to have unelected government officials making decisions that affect us all without any representation?
Re: There has never been a 4th branch of governmen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous - unaccountable agencies given that kind of power is not what the Constitution intended.
This would be like having a public corporation with departments that are entirely autonomous and not subject to board decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course government isn't a company and there are all sorts of features in our government that would be ridiculous if featured in a company.
Furthermore the constitution is pretty clear congress is where regulatory authority rests and the president is in charge of executing that vision. If they set up an independent body then that's the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, right!
Just as ridiculous as having judges with no training in some science "feel" that their opinion is a better judge than pure science and adjudicate for dumping more poison into a stream.
Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you want.
*You* want some politicians to overrule (probably due to bribes) what sober professionals in the field have assessed is the best path forward.
Re: (Score:2)
I want accountability and having powerful agencies accountable to no one, not even POTUS, is the way you nurture corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who (Score:5, Informative)
In this context, an "Independent" agency, is one that is not specifically under the direct control of the executive branch, despite serving an executive function within its area of responsibility. It means that while the executive branch has some administrative responsibilities for the agency, it does not call the shots. Those appointed to lead the agency, by congress and the president, are not shackled to the whims of political theatre. It is a way to help an agency focus on good policy, and not on good political optics (at least to a degree).
Re:who (Score:4, Informative)
That is the idea that, in Britain, entities like the NHS and the BBC have operated under. Charters specify the responsibilties and duties, and guarantee the funding needed to provide these, but the organisation is (supposed) to carry these out wholly independently of the government of the day.
It actually worked quite well for some time, but has been under increasing pressure and subject to increasing government sabotage over the past 20-25 years.
It's also the idea behind science/engineering research funding bodies the world over. These should direct funding for grant proposals not on political whim or popularity but on the basis of what is actually needed. Again, though, it does get sabotaged a fair bit.
Exactly how you'd mitigate this is unclear, many governments have - after all - the leading talent in manipulation, corruption, and kickbacks. But presumably, strategies can be devised to weaken political influence.
Re: (Score:1)
If that's what an independent agency is, then independent agencies are blatantly unconstitutional. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" is literally the first sentence in Article II. If it is serving an executive function, then the executive branch "calls the shots."
Re: who (Score:3)
the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of both independent agencies and delegated powers in the past. This court may not, but that has more to do with their focus on giving the Trump administration as much leeway as possible, and nothing to do with what the constitution actually allows. After all, they have upheld his appropriation of similarly explicit congressiona
Re: (Score:1)
I can't see a way to call Constitutional a quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, agency ostensively under the executive branch but not under the control of the person in whom all executive power is vested. How can that not violate the separation of powers? It is very nearly the creation of a 4th branch of government.
Re: who (Score:4, Informative)
Congress has the ability to delegate its authority to regulatory agencies they create, in the same way that the POTUS can delegate his authority to Cabinet members. When the POTUS tries to undermine the independence of the FTC (or any other independent agency), he is not taking back to him powers that were his. He is violating the very separation of powers you claim to care about, by seizing control over congressional authority simply because the job of the agency requires some level of 'execution'. Regulations are derived from, and therefore an extension of the law, which is the responsibility of Congress. The president was originally envisioned, not as the leader of the government, but as the executor of the will of congress with oversight from the court.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what an independent agency is, then independent agencies are blatantly unconstitutional. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" is literally the first sentence in Article II. If it is serving an executive function, then the executive branch "calls the shots."
I don't think it's that straightforward. The Chief Executive has some control over the agency in that the executive gets to nominate members. But regulatory agencies have both a legislative and executive function so it's not entirely clear which branch they should belong to. And I don't think we want to preclude independent agencies just because the Founding Fathers didn't consider them in 1787.
Pragmatically, the law both Congress and the President agreed to laid out the rules for how the agencies will func
Re: (Score:2)
What policies to implement is a political question. What makes for good policy is a political question. Political questions need to be answered by those the People elect to answer them, not bureaucrats accountable to no one.
Regulations are supposed to come from Congress, not the Executive branch. The executive branch enforces them, under the direction of the President. That's what the Constitution
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now think about all the things that those agencies do day to day. Think about the technical expertise necessary to perform these important government functions. And then think about the skillset of the average congress critter.
Congress is full of politicians, which means folks whose primary job qualification is the ability to convince rich people to part with their money for the
No (Score:5, Informative)
Arguing about plain-use definitions is a waste of time; intentionally trying to confuse people with bullshit is malicious.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
If a president can dictate how the agency runs, it's not independent, is it?
We all know why this change was done. It's so the Russian asset can force the agency to revoke licenses for communication companies who report mean things about him such as him falling asleep every day or reporting his inane ramblings or calling him out on his lies. Also, he can force communication companies to report only what he says, just like in Russia.
So no, everything changes.
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
Name a previous President that interfered directly in their operations and decisions as the current one has and then you might have a point.
Re: well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why post again?
Just have to get that last word in? Some psychological compulsion you should discuss with a professional?
Re: (Score:1)
yup.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait you don't know why you started posting in a discussion online and are upset that people replied? Do you have late stage self destructive social media addiction? Let us know if you need help finding the log-out button.
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
"Your Honor, I object!"
"Why?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"
Re: (Score:1)
sure, whatever you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is that not an answer to the question its a complete disanalogous situation in every aspect.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. In principle, presidents have no authority whatsoever to dictate how an agency runs. The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government.
In the US, in principle, the status of the civil service as co-equal to, and independent of, the executive should be added to the Constitution and enshrined in law for good measure. Not that that would help much with the current SCOTUS, but a Constitutional change mi
Re: (Score:2)
US Constitution, Article II Section 1 begins: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
That's the civil service.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the executive tells the civil service what it needs to do, but the civil service is wholly independent.
Re: (Score:2)
"The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government"
Nope, no, and NO!
Your fourth co-equal branch of government would be the deep state, in that case.
There are only THREE equal branches of government and this nasty thought that the civil service should equal some fourth co-equal branch of government is just bunk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:well (Score:4, Interesting)
The commissioners of the FED are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Every single federal judge is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
That clearly doesn't preclude independence of operation from the President. Or are you saying that monetary policy and the justice system should be beholden to an all-powerful leader who has no fucking clue what he's doing too?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a legal, political and normative definition, not out of the dictionary.
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC has never been independent, and it's disingenuous to make it sound like they are. At least this is more honest?
I mean, that's just nonsense. Of course it is. It was specifically designed to be. Consider. Brendan Carr is NOT a cabinet member. The FCC is a commission, a word that is derived from Latin explicitly meaning to delegate authority. It has commissioners with terms that do not run concurrently explicitly so that they will not be appointed during the same administration and it was formed with rules about limiting the number of members from any one political party. It was and is independent by design, no matter
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing that it wasn't intended to be independent, I'm saying that Congress never had the power to do it. They wanted to avoid the hassle and electoral ramifications of making these regulatory decisions, so they tried to pass it off to the Executive. They need to get back to doing their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Then Congress should have established it as a Congressional Committee. They never had the authority to give their power to the Executive branch by playing a shell game with Constitutional powers
It is a commission. Commission is essentially a synonym for committee or close to it (it's basically a set/subset thing, a Committee is a subset of a Commission, though a commission can consist of just a Committee). It is under the executive branch though, rather than being a congressional committee because it has work it needs to do of the kind that clearly qualifies as executive. Rather than setting it up as a Congressional Committee then, they set it up as an independent federal commission, setting rules
Re: (Score:2)
How can it be independent if the president can fire them for any reason at any time?
Couldn't he just get the people he wants in there? How "independent" is *that*?
Re: (Score:2)
It can be independent because it's legally independent. I mean, you might as well ask how anyone can be independent if someone can come up behind them with a chloroform-soaked rag and then toss them into the basement. Sure, the law can be broken, but the fact that it can be broken does not mean that breaking the law is not breaking the law. I can eat all the cookies on the plate when I was only supposed to get one and, sure, the fact that I broke the rules doesn't bring the cookies back, but the fact that i
Re:Ever read the constitution? (Score:4, Insightful)
The President is supposed to execute... what exactly? Whatever he feels like doing when he wakes up? Only what is written in the Constitution? Congress cannot constrain at all what the President does?
If Congress passes a set of rules (and it is either signed or a veto overridden), the executive is supposed to follow those rules. Does the President have the right to murder people? If he does so, is the only recourse to impeach him? What if he murders any Senator opposed to him (or all Senators) so he can't be impeached? I don't see anything in the Constitution prohibiting that - according to your logic the President can't be bound by laws against murder, so by your logic it must be permissible.
Maybe occasionally the rules go against what the Constitution says... and in those cases a law should be invalidated. But I can't find where the constitution says that Congress can't limit what the President has the right to do.
Re: (Score:2)
And, actually, the Constitution goes out of it's way to explain in Article 1 that the legislative branch is where regulatory authority comes from, delegated to the executive to ... execute on.
So if Congress says it's an independent body, it's an independent body as declared by statute. And SCOTUS has upheld that independent agencies are a thing - see: Federal Reserve Bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Being in the same branch does not necessarily imply a hierarchical relationship between them. The legislative branch sets forth what is going to happen, while actually making it happen is executive. That doesn't mean the executive branch can ignore laws. The legislative branch can also set forth that something is going to happen but leave the exact details of the happening to subject matter experts. This is essentially the framework for a federal agency. Whether it works that way in practice is a separ
Re: (Score:2)
It does not say, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, or whatever agencies Congress sees fit to create".
Re: (Score:2)
And what is the legal definition of executive power? It doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean and it doesn't mean hierarchy. As a legal theory, unitary executive theory is one of the ways people interpret that. But to interpret it that way would directly erode the checks and balances built into the Constitution. In effect, laws would not matter anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
It is part of the executive branch sure, but the President is not the owner of the executive branch. Here are two parts of Article II to consider:
"...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
and
"...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers o
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who works for the President but needed to be confirmed by the Senate, can be fired by the President. Ambassadors, Cabinet offic
Re: (Score:2)
Most importantly though is Article II of the Constitution - "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That pretty clearly means what it clearly means.
Starting with this first. My mistake. I just assumed that everyone would recognize that all the quotes I put in my comment actually are from article II of the constitution. I guess I assumed that since I literally wrote it when introducing the quotes. In any case, the executive power vested in the President is quite clearly, according to the rest of Article II, still subordinate to both the constitution and the rest of the law.
As for the rest of what you wrote, more or less accurate. However, you will note
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, given how the laws are written, the president can fire and replace people he doesn't like, until the whole of the civil service does exactly what the president wants. He may not be a King as in able to declare Laws that Congress is supposed to (although he does, through EO, now) but he can have policies that in his own way enact the laws of Congress. Or just ignore them and hope Congress ignores your transgessions.
Takes too many votes to impeach, anyway. Any the boots on the ground, in every
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, given how the laws are written, the president can fire and replace people he doesn't like, until the whole of the civil service does exactly what the president wants. He may not be a King as in able to declare Laws that Congress is supposed to (although he does, through EO, now) but he can have policies that in his own way enact the laws of Congress. Or just ignore them and hope Congress ignores your transgessions.
Well, yeah. The big problem with the Constitution that I have always complained about is that it has no teeth. Which means that it can simply be ignored and the only option to fix it is for someone to sue. Despite the fact that these are the laws of the nation and so anyone living in the nation should have standing to sue, the ability to sue is subject to rules on standing that require very direct proof of harm. As a totally hypothetical example, it is completely illegal for the US President to receive hund
Re: (Score:2)
President may not be a king but is surely acting like one.
No, he is acting like a dictator. I have a King, he's job is to sign papers that are put in front of him. He can also advise, counsel and warn about those papers but at the end of the day, he signs.
The tradition for a King who acts like a dictator is to remove his head, though for the last 300 plus years, simply removing him from the throne or in one case, declaring him unfit, has been standard.
The King Reigns, Parliament Rules.
Re: (Score:2)
So explain the FED then, and why it would be a good thing to have monetary policy be a political football.
Oh wait, they are an independent agency, as confirmed by SCOTUS, are they not?
It's all fun and games until you fuck with the money. Then we learn where the real laws are.
Re: (Score:2)
So explain... why it would be a good thing to have monetary policy be a political football.
It isn't?
The last several presidents of both parties have all run up trillions of dollars of debt year after year. I know that isn't "Monetary Policy" from strictly economics/central banking terminology, but... the entire economy depends on the aggregate effect of every decision the government makes. There's no longer any such thing as federal policy that doesn't determine market behavior. Indeed, that is literally the point of most of the biggest laws and policies of the past 24 years -- to change the econ