| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 2 hours ago |
| I reject the premise. The President is not a king, he isn't presumptively allowed to fire anyone he'd like. The statute establishing the National Science Board (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1863) does not give him any such power, so he doesn't have it. |
|
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent [-] |
| NSB members are executive officers, the statute is silent on removal, and Article II makes presidential removal power the default. Silence means he can fire them. |
| |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Article II says no such thing. Humphrey's Executor established a useful compromise between "the Constitution is silent on removal" and "come on, is it really impossible to fire a postmaster?", but Trump has chosen to defect from that compromise so I no longer feel bound to accept it. Until he reinstates all independent agency heads he's purported to fire, I don't accept any removals he performs without explicit authority as legitimate. | | |
| ▲ | juniperus an hour ago | parent [-] | | if a court overturns or reinterprets that, then it is the law. America is a common law country, not a civil law country. The process of litigation and court precedent is how laws work in a common law country, so I don't see how your framing of the situation is really all that valid. |
|
|
