Remix clone Hacker News

Is that meant to support some position, what do you even mean? In republics the executive has all the powers?

US president has a lot of powers, I’m not aware of any elected official in Europe with the same amount of powers (ignore Russia).

President of France is probably the most comparable, but in France you also have the prime minister, selected by the president but supported by the parliament.

In Sweden we have a separation of powers within the executive branch. Government agencies are independent of the cabinet.

DOGE’s audit wouldn’t be possible in Sweden, that would have required legislation or even constitutional changes.

Sweden has already an independent government agency that audits the rest of the government, but it has support in the constitution for that and it is technically administered by the parliament and not the cabinet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_National_Audit_Offic...

My personal opinion is that the US system of government is vastly inferior to Sweden’s.

▲

actionfromafar 2 days ago | parent [-]

The so called "audit" is not "possible" in the US either, except nobody intervenes when the laws are broken. Where is the security clearance?

▲

tored 2 days ago | parent [-]

If they have security clearance then the audit would be legal?

▲

justin66 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You've hammered away on this question in multiple comments. Are you under the impression you're consulting with experts in US federal law?

▲

tored 2 days ago | parent [-]

It seems that many objects to the audit on technicalities and use that as an argument that the audit itself is illegal or unconstitutional. It is a flawed argument.

▲

justin66 2 days ago | parent [-]

> audit itself is illegal or unconstitutional

The audit might be unconstitutional because it's coming from a department which is wielding a great deal of Article II power even though it's not led by a cabinet official who was confirmed by congress. In other words, unconstitutional for organizational reasons that are unlikely to land any one person in criminal trouble. I wouldn't want to argue that point either way, but I bet the question of DOGE's constitutionality will be considered by a federal court in the coming years.

The notion that the audit is illegal because of "technicalities" is a lot more sympathetic. The handling of secure information in the government in unorthodox ways can be deemed to violate the law, or not, in some surprising (or maybe even arbitrary) ways. The last really big time this played out politically in the US was probably Clinton's email server.

As I hinted at above, I don't think anyone here is really conversant with that area of the law. On the other hand, I'm fairly certain even if DOGE has broken the law, the current DoJ will not find that DOGE has done anything requiring legal action, for the obvious political reasons.

▲

tored 2 days ago | parent [-]

I find your answer most interesting yet, especially about Article II.

Apparently the president can appoint temporary advisors that does not need approval from congress. If Mr Musk qualifies for such appointment I guess is that something for the courts to decide. I guess that implies that the audit itself is time framed.

	▲	dragonwriter 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		In the Appointments Clause case challenging Musk’s role, the Administration has said Musk is officially an non-decision-making adviser (not a temporary one, just a generic White House staffer not requiring confirmation), and completely unconnected from US DOGE Service. Oddly, they failed at the time, on direct questioning by the judge, to identify who the Administrator of US DOGE Service currently is.

▲

actionfromafar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know. I know if they don't, it's illegal.