1 vote

Does Paul's plan to eliminate 5 cabinet departments need congressional approval?

Did an unsuccessful search here and elsewhere online, couldn't find a definitive answer.

Not much more to ask here than the title. In my discussions with liberals, they've stated that there's no way congress would approve of his budget plan of cutting $1T dollars, which would in part come from the elimination of the departments outlined in his plan.

I'm just not sure this is a submit-to-congress budget item, or can he as an executive eliminate these things? I looked at article 2 of the constitution, can't tell from it.

Thanks.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

These Departments Are Under The Executive Branch

Every employee of these departments serves at the pleasure of the president, so Ron can fire the entire staff on day-one, whether congress likes it or not.

Then he just returns the departmental surpluses to the treasury, the same as he does with his congressional-office surplus each year.

don't know

I don't know the answer to your question.

It seems like Presidents grab as much power as people will give them and then some. So, if the outcry isn't too huge then maybe so. It really discourages me that people in this country don't seem to care about their freedom. That is what used to set us apart. But I digress...

Another way it could work is he sets the bar and won't put out a budget that isn't balanced. Then Congress whines and stalemates as they always do. If they don't approve something then everything gets cut across the board. Since he wants to get rid the of most things then this is alright and military spending is off the charts now so cutting will only further his foreign policy plan. Congress won't want things cut across the board so they will approve something more useful perhaps.

POSTUS Carter established them; why couldn't POTUS Ron cut them?

During Carter's term as President, two new cabinet-level departments were created: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.
--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

All of the departments that Ron Paul want to cut are
cabinet positions, under the executive control of the White House.

Education and Energy were created by Congress

and signed by Jimmy Carter. Not assigning a cabinet position would not get rid of the department.

Commerce Department created

in 1903 under a different name and renamed in 1913. 1913 was quite a year! funny that wikipedia doesn't say how it was created. BUT if this is any indication....

"On January 13, 2012, President Obama announced his intentions to ask the United States Congress for the power to close the department and replace it with a new cabinet-level agency focused on trade and exports. "

Department of Interior approved by Congress

According to wikipedia the Department of Interior was created by a bill that was approved by congress in 1849. It is Administered by a cabinet position. But it seems like it would need congressional approval to go away.

Department of Education too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Edu...
In fact it wasn't exactly created under Carter, it was split off from the existing Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The splitting off was done by an act of Congress.

Interestingly, HEW was created (in 1943?) "as part of the authority, in which the president was allowed to create or reorganize bureaucracies as long as neither house of Congress passed a legislative veto. This power to create new departments was removed after 1962, and in the early 1980s the Supreme Court declared legislative vetoes unconstitutional."

and HUD

HUD was created by Congress as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Urban_Development_A...

That is interesting about Legislative vetoes. And yes, a lot of these Departments were just reorganizations from other departments. I suspect that will happen again. The good pieces kept and put in another place.

Don't listen to them!

The President (or Executive branch) creates the budget and sends it to congress for approval. Not the other way around!

Congress can agree to the budget, cut the budget, or send it back to the President and tell him to come up with a better plan.

Neither does the President have to spend all that he asked for, or was appropriated by congress. Just as the Good Dr. presently does each year by returning a good portion of his allotted congressional expense account.

The President of the United States holds extreme POWERS to cut spending, but no power to approve his own buget!

It’s called separation of powers!

The Winds of Change!

Sounds GOOD!

... but where is your LEGAL basis for this staement. We supposedly have separation of powers, but they get violated all the time at choice it seems.

Like I said I think there's a legal expert or other historical context needed for other times this has happened. (has it ever?)

The Constitution, read it!

The real problem in this country, we have not had a President since the 1913 Banking Act who had the real constitutional guts to veto a bill that is unconstitutional.

Ron Paul has made it very clear that ANY bill that crosses his desk will be weighed against to constitution FIRST, to see if it is within the confines of the US Constitution. If it does not he’s already made it clear he will veto it.

This is what has the insiders of the political elite so upset, because they know he will do just that!

The Winds of Change!

Lots of speculation, but I

Lots of speculation, but I just don't know. I certainly don't like the hypocrisy of it taking an executive order, something I think he tends to disagree with, to eliminate these departments.

Of course one could always argue that the legality exists SOMEWHERE in the US code that he could reference with such a signing statement to end the departments.

I just can't believe, but want to, that he could even as the executive just entirely eliminate the departments ENTIRELY, meaning their budgets. Even if he has the ability to not appoint successors after firing people, it's still a budget item is it not?

Judge Nap?

I don't expect an answer but also posed this question via Judge Napolitano's facebook page. We need some definitive info here...

Could he call for a "constitutionality ...

review of each of the program by the Supreme Court? Might open up inconvenient doors where the government charged us for stuff they shouldnt have.

fireant's picture

"...and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate..."

Article II, Section 2, regarding the appointment of "other public Ministers".
The Constitution is silent however, on the termination of said Ministers.
I would expect it would become a huge budget battle, but the President in actuality could terminate employees, then simply not offer new appointments, which would in effect shut a department down, though not eliminate it.

Undo what Wilson did

Are you telling me that Ron Paul couldn't simply end the Fed?

Are you telling me that Ron Paul couldn't simply Abolish, and gradually terminate the Federal Reserve?!?!

When the U.S. Constitution explicitly states the Federal Reserve was never part of the charter, nor was its clause of contract; in Articles 1 - 10.

This sounds like misinformation to me. That's the whole point everyone's getting Ron in & fighting, is to End the Fed, which overturns blanket violations of the law (everywhere) & also brings a strong national defense at home by debating it..

fireant's picture

The thread references Cabinet Depts, not the fed

.

Undo what Wilson did

Ahh I misunderstood. Dr. Paul could stack the court...

Then argue their constitutionality before the Court, since he has enough militias to back him..it would end quickly.

That would be unlikely with

That would be unlikely with lifetime appointments, and would take forever, meaning it would NEVER happen in the first year like his plan proposes.

With Judge Napolitano you better believe it'd happen...

We would make it happen, because we have the majority needed.

Are you kidding? Blatant misinformation. He can eliminate them.

Each department can be re-assigned and eliminated.

Ron Paul laid out a 5 year plan not any different than Reagan did. It is perfectly sound, and ends the IRS & other alphabet soup agencies in 5 years.

From my reading of the Constitution...

It sounds like the President creates the departments, so it seems like he would have the authority to abolish them.

Wouldn't that be a great way to start off an administration? The DAY he gets in office he begins blasting those departments to shreds with his shotgun loaded with the Constitution! Approval rating = THROUGH THE EFFING ROOF. Approval in DC = -50. Ron Paul in office = awesome.

An Executive Order" might do the trick to star off...

Also, when President Paul takes office he is backed by millions of Liberty-minded Americans and for that reason the US Congress and Senate would naturally be lerry going against the President for should they do this they would lose their cushy jobs with high pay and life time retirements and other things they rip the American people off with.

Today is my negative Monday...not too happy with the politicans who have ripped us off for decades.

fearless brave joyful peaceful loving grateful, compassionate

I believe he..

...needs approval. Unless you want an Obama-esque dictatorship he can on his own.

He has carte blanche now that Obama has signed away

everything as we knew it. I doubt he would do that. He has too much integrity---unless it is to end the fed!

Ron is very careful of what he says...

I believe that he can re-assign and eventually eliminate departments.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS