I just posted that in a separatepost, because I realized I might have given you too much credit in seeing how what I commented tied in to the President being directly over the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Did you not bother reading my post? Did you not understand it?
Do you not understand how things like conflict of interest arises in the scenario you've painted? Are you completely unaware of the legal ramifications of someone being unfairly dismissed? Or that the President has much more important things to do than run around firing every mid-level employee that does something he doesn't like?
Note that I'm not just talking about Trump here. Unless you think this would somehow magically only relate to him? Imagine if the Democrats could just fire whoever they wanted.
So, to point it out, again, just because the President could eventually work his way down the chain of command to eventually get to the person he wants to fire, that does not mean he has the authority to just fire anyone he wants.
There's a concept called "abuse of power" that you might want to look up.
Please explain what conflict of interest would arise in the President directing his Secretary of Homeland Security to fire a particular employee or group of employees. Assuming he had just cause, of course.
Well, that's a lot of assuming, first off. If there was just cause, then the President wouldn't need to interfere in the first place.
If it's a point of, "Hey, Bob, Marcy down in accounting has been embezzling. Don't know why you haven't noticed, but she needs the heave-ho."...that's one thing.
But if it's "John in HR has been talking shit about me online, so I want them fired. If you won't do it, then I'm going to fire you and hire someone who willl" that's another.
It's simply needlessly putting the President's reputation at risk, if nothing else. And again, huge fucking waste of time. Especially if there is actually just cause in firing them. If there was, then it wouldn't need the President to point that out.
You know I gave you a jumping off point on where to look for an explanation of this stuff.
I can't tell if you don't understand why the President doesn't have the power to hire and fire anyone he likes, or if you just disagree with it.
Because if you disagree with it, ok. I can understand that. But I'm getting more of a "I've never heard of this concept before, so it must not exist" vibe from you.
It seems to me that when we say someone has the power to do something it means they have the authority or leverage to make that thing happen. I do not understand how the President does not have the authority or leverage to fire an employee at FEMA. (Granting the just cause argument.)
Well hell, going by your margins there, the President has the power to to do a shit ton of things that aren't legal, and aren't ethical, and that he shouldn't do.
If having power is the only thing that matters, then sure. The President has the power to do pretty much anything he wants.
Does that make it legal? No. Does that make it ethical? No. Just because he can, does it mean he should? No.
I never once thought I'd have to point out that what the President does should be/needs to be legal and ethical. That's the entire framework our government is supposed to work on.
That whole "abuse of power" thing I mentioned previously, when the entire conversation is about how powerful the President is.
I just posted that in a separatepost, because I realized I might have given you too much credit in seeing how what I commented tied in to the President being directly over the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Did you not bother reading my post? Did you not understand it?
Do you not understand how things like conflict of interest arises in the scenario you've painted? Are you completely unaware of the legal ramifications of someone being unfairly dismissed? Or that the President has much more important things to do than run around firing every mid-level employee that does something he doesn't like?
Note that I'm not just talking about Trump here. Unless you think this would somehow magically only relate to him? Imagine if the Democrats could just fire whoever they wanted.
So, to point it out, again, just because the President could eventually work his way down the chain of command to eventually get to the person he wants to fire, that does not mean he has the authority to just fire anyone he wants.
There's a concept called "abuse of power" that you might want to look up.
Please explain what conflict of interest would arise in the President directing his Secretary of Homeland Security to fire a particular employee or group of employees. Assuming he had just cause, of course.
Well, that's a lot of assuming, first off. If there was just cause, then the President wouldn't need to interfere in the first place.
If it's a point of, "Hey, Bob, Marcy down in accounting has been embezzling. Don't know why you haven't noticed, but she needs the heave-ho."...that's one thing.
But if it's "John in HR has been talking shit about me online, so I want them fired. If you won't do it, then I'm going to fire you and hire someone who willl" that's another.
It's simply needlessly putting the President's reputation at risk, if nothing else. And again, huge fucking waste of time. Especially if there is actually just cause in firing them. If there was, then it wouldn't need the President to point that out.
You know I gave you a jumping off point on where to look for an explanation of this stuff.
I can't tell if you don't understand why the President doesn't have the power to hire and fire anyone he likes, or if you just disagree with it.
Because if you disagree with it, ok. I can understand that. But I'm getting more of a "I've never heard of this concept before, so it must not exist" vibe from you.
It seems to me that when we say someone has the power to do something it means they have the authority or leverage to make that thing happen. I do not understand how the President does not have the authority or leverage to fire an employee at FEMA. (Granting the just cause argument.)
Well hell, going by your margins there, the President has the power to to do a shit ton of things that aren't legal, and aren't ethical, and that he shouldn't do.
If having power is the only thing that matters, then sure. The President has the power to do pretty much anything he wants.
Does that make it legal? No. Does that make it ethical? No. Just because he can, does it mean he should? No.
I never once thought I'd have to point out that what the President does should be/needs to be legal and ethical. That's the entire framework our government is supposed to work on.
That whole "abuse of power" thing I mentioned previously, when the entire conversation is about how powerful the President is.
Sometimes I don't know why I even bother...