January 28, 2025
Why Trump's IG Firings Were Legal
Timothy Birdnow
The firing of Inspector Generals was entirely proper and standard operating procedure.
This article from the Blaze explains:
Yes, there is that matter of notifying Congress no later than 30 days before the removal. But one law professor deals with it:
These are not advice and consent positions but staffers.
Anyone remember Bill Clinton firing all the U.S. atttorneys when he first took office? No? The media doesn't like to discuss that. But he did it, and Obama did much the same when he took power. These were U.S. Attorneys, who actually could bring charges against people, and not merely I.G.s whose total authority is to advise the President so as to manage his own branch of government better.
The same people howling for Trump's head over this were the same folks who said it was just fine when Clinton fired the attorneys.
Another point - ever heard of the Tenure of Office Act?
The Tenure of Office act was a nasty little party favor from the Civil War. Since Lincoln had appointed a Southern Democrat as his Vice President and tthat man - Andrew Johnson - assumed the office of President upon Lincoln's assassination Congress passed the TOOA to control him. It said the President could not fire anybody appointed by the previous president in the event of assassination. The idea was Johnson was stuck with Lincoln's people like it or not.
It all came to a head when he was forced to fire Sec. State Edwin Stanton. Stanton simply refused to leave and he actually barricaded himself in his office and had to be removed by a seige! This was the primary article of impeachment against Johnson (the other 19 were all throwaways. For instance they said he was drunk at his inaugural - something not illegal - but in fact Johnson didn't drink but was a bit loopy because his doctors gave him cough medicine.)
Anyway Congress repealed the Tenure of Office Act in 1883,and it was declared unconstitutional in Myers v. United States (1926). It took so long because it was only enforced the one time -against Johnson.
The point is this law is essentially an updated version of the Tenure of Office Act. The Courts have already spoken.
Trump had every right to do what he did and Congress can suck on it.
Of course some liberal group will file suit and eventtually lose but they can make hay while the sun is shining. Their inevitable loss will be buried on page eight of the newspaper. All that will matter will be the fact of a legal challenge and the media hysterically calling for impeachment for breaking the law.
The firing of Inspector Generals was entirely proper and standard operating procedure.
This article from the Blaze explains:
"Inspectors general have the responsibility of conducting audits and other oversight measures to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in various federal agencies. According to the website for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency: "The President nominates IGs at Cabinet-level departments and major agencies with Senate confirmation. These IGs can only be removed by the President. The agency heads appoint and can remove IGs at designated Federal entities."
The website further adds that "both houses of Congress must be notified if an IG is removed by the President or an agency head," though the statute notes that the notification must come no "later than 30 days before the removal." That stipulation regarding congressional notification was added to the Inspector General Act in 2022.
'The Inspectors General ... are simple members of the executive branch agencies. Even if Congress attempts to place conditions on their removal, those conditions are unconstitutional.'
Liberals have since bewailed the so-called "Friday night massacre" of IGs.
The website further adds that "both houses of Congress must be notified if an IG is removed by the President or an agency head," though the statute notes that the notification must come no "later than 30 days before the removal." That stipulation regarding congressional notification was added to the Inspector General Act in 2022.
'The Inspectors General ... are simple members of the executive branch agencies. Even if Congress attempts to place conditions on their removal, those conditions are unconstitutional.'
Liberals have since bewailed the so-called "Friday night massacre" of IGs.
Yes, there is that matter of notifying Congress no later than 30 days before the removal. But one law professor deals with it:
"What's more, John Yoo, a well-respected law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a longtime supporter of Trump, believes the president is on solid legal footing with the firings, despite the caterwauling on the left.
"President Trump is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not protect officers of the United States from removal by the President. ... In Seila Law, the Court said that the only officers that Congress might be able to protect are those that are members of multi-body commissions, like the FCC or the SEC," Yoo said, according to Newsweek.
"The Inspectors General do not have that status; they are simple members of the executive branch agencies. Even if Congress attempts to place conditions on their removal, those conditions are unconstitutional. Any Inspector General that attempts to challenge their removal in court — they would still have to leave office and just sue for back pay — will be wasting their money in lawyers fees."
"President Trump is well within his power to remove members of the executive branch at will. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not protect officers of the United States from removal by the President. ... In Seila Law, the Court said that the only officers that Congress might be able to protect are those that are members of multi-body commissions, like the FCC or the SEC," Yoo said, according to Newsweek.
"The Inspectors General do not have that status; they are simple members of the executive branch agencies. Even if Congress attempts to place conditions on their removal, those conditions are unconstitutional. Any Inspector General that attempts to challenge their removal in court — they would still have to leave office and just sue for back pay — will be wasting their money in lawyers fees."
These are not advice and consent positions but staffers.
Anyone remember Bill Clinton firing all the U.S. atttorneys when he first took office? No? The media doesn't like to discuss that. But he did it, and Obama did much the same when he took power. These were U.S. Attorneys, who actually could bring charges against people, and not merely I.G.s whose total authority is to advise the President so as to manage his own branch of government better.
The same people howling for Trump's head over this were the same folks who said it was just fine when Clinton fired the attorneys.
Another point - ever heard of the Tenure of Office Act?
The Tenure of Office act was a nasty little party favor from the Civil War. Since Lincoln had appointed a Southern Democrat as his Vice President and tthat man - Andrew Johnson - assumed the office of President upon Lincoln's assassination Congress passed the TOOA to control him. It said the President could not fire anybody appointed by the previous president in the event of assassination. The idea was Johnson was stuck with Lincoln's people like it or not.
It all came to a head when he was forced to fire Sec. State Edwin Stanton. Stanton simply refused to leave and he actually barricaded himself in his office and had to be removed by a seige! This was the primary article of impeachment against Johnson (the other 19 were all throwaways. For instance they said he was drunk at his inaugural - something not illegal - but in fact Johnson didn't drink but was a bit loopy because his doctors gave him cough medicine.)
Anyway Congress repealed the Tenure of Office Act in 1883,and it was declared unconstitutional in Myers v. United States (1926). It took so long because it was only enforced the one time -against Johnson.
The point is this law is essentially an updated version of the Tenure of Office Act. The Courts have already spoken.
Trump had every right to do what he did and Congress can suck on it.
Of course some liberal group will file suit and eventtually lose but they can make hay while the sun is shining. Their inevitable loss will be buried on page eight of the newspaper. All that will matter will be the fact of a legal challenge and the media hysterically calling for impeachment for breaking the law.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.
24kb generated in CPU 0.0078, elapsed 0.199 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.1935 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.1935 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
