[…] David M. Driesen, a Syracuse University law professor, said Tillis’ comparison is faulty.
“There is no precedent for withholding monies across the board because of broad policy disagreement with the law,” Driesen said. “That is a frontal attack on the legislative authority of Congress.”
If lawmakers don’t challenge DOGE, by passing new laws or going to court, they risk losing the powers Congress has held for two and a half centuries. Driesen and other legal experts said judges might consider the lack of congressional opposition as they decide cases on this question.
“That shouldn’t matter at all as a matter of constitutional law,” Bowman said. “But I suspect that for some judges, the silence might carry some weight.”
Visit us @ [email protected] for all the latest news on the topics of astroturfing, propaganda and disinformation.
As a child in elementary school, I recall the teacher describing balance of power and thinking it seemed like the president had too much power. I later learned some of the intricacies of the system, but am no expert and still recall not grasping how the checks and balances would actually play out if a nefarious individual were to infiltrate the system.
At this point, I’m thinking either my naive younger self was right, or these people that made it to power didn’t understand any better than my elementary knowledge and genuinely believe they have this power.
Or they know what they’re doing and it’s a blatant attack in the USA.
In any of these situations, there’s no clean way out when nearly half the population actually supports it.