this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
750 points (98.8% liked)

News

36201 readers
2771 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The White House is drafting an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, aligning with Trump's long-standing pledge.

However, Congress must approve the agency's abolition, making its passage unlikely despite GOP control. Critics, including the National Education Association, warn this move would harm students, increase costs, and weaken protections.

GOP lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to eliminate the department since its 1979 founding.

Trump also recently signed an order expanding school choice, reinforcing the Republican agenda of decentralizing education policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The executive order’s a symbolic gesture—Congress won’t scrap the Department outright.

You're wrong. They will not wait for Congress to do anything.

Who the fuck is going to stop them, you?

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The courts, actually. Been there since Nixon tried similar stunts. Administrative state's got more staying power than most realize. But hey, doom scrolling's more fun than reading SCOTUS precedents.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, the SCOTUS that said anything done by a sitting president is automatically legal? That one?

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, you mean the unitary executive theory? That magical interpretation where presidential power is somehow absolute? Fascinating how selective that reading was—worked great for executive orders, not so much for criminal immunity.

The courts have been remarkably... flexible with precedent lately. But even in this twilight zone version of constitutional law, there's still that pesky difference between issuing orders and having them actually implemented. The machinery of state has its own peculiar physics.

Though I suppose when SCOTUS is rewriting administrative law on the fly, precedent becomes more of a suggestion than a rule. Welcome to the constitutional speedrun era.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will physically remove people from their jobs if it comes down to it, regardless of the legality of the order. You really don't seem to get it.

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Physical force is amateur hour thinking. You can march people out at gunpoint, sure. Then what? Who runs payroll? Maintains infrastructure? Implements policy? Even dictatorships need functioning bureaucracy.

But keep thinking might-makes-right while actual power plays happen in budget meetings and administrative procedures.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nobody runs payroll, my dude. They want it to fail. They've spelled it out in Project 2025, the entire point is "dismantling the administrative state," and they've shown every single day in the past two weeks, that they are doing exactly that.

Until people accept the reality of the situation, it's just going to get worse.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We already have precedent for a president ignoring a SCOTUS decision (Andrew Jackson).

Does the Supreme Court have some kind of secret police force that makes sure the other two branches of the government follow their rulings?

In fascism, might makes right, and the person with the biggest guns/army gets what they want, or else they just fucking kill you.

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jackson's precedent created a constitutional crisis that haunted executive power for generations. But let's ignore history because "guns solve everything," right?

And no, SCOTUS doesn't need secret police when they have the entire administrative state's inertia. The machine keeps running because people show up, file papers, and follow procedure—not because someone's pointing weapons.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Jackson’s precedent created a constitutional crisis that haunted executive power for generations. But let’s ignore history because “guns solve everything,” right?

Eh? Do you think I was agreeing with Jackson (or in this case Trump), or condoning it?

It's just history.

And no, SCOTUS doesn’t need secret police when they have the entire administrative state’s inertia. The machine keeps running because people show up, file papers, and follow procedure—not because someone’s pointing weapons.

Speaking of history, it seems like you need to learn some things (or refresh your memory). Because this is exactly how society has always worked. The majority of human civilization has been this.

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Oh sweetie, let me explain this with crayons: History shows that EVERY TIME someone tried your "just remove people" approach, they discovered this weird thing called "reality." You can't run a modern state with just guns and machismo.

You know what happened when your heroes tried that? The trains stopped running. The power grid failed. The sewage backed up. Because—surprise!—it turns out those boring bureaucrats actually DO things. Important things. Like making society function.

But please, tell me more about how you'll "physically remove people." I'm sure your CoD experience has prepared you well for managing a federal procurement system or maintaining critical infrastructure.

This isn't your high school parking lot. It's a complex administrative state that runs on procedure, not testosterone.