>Isn’t it what the head of executive branch supposed to mean?
In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.
NIH and NSF ultimately report to the executive branch and if their reach can be expanded under executive fiat in a democratic administration, I don't see why they can't be limited under a republican one?
"The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests."
Supposed to, but the consequences for not doing so are... overly complicated, see the various impeachments and court cases he's already had and defeated.
The bounds and laws should have been finetuned long ago, reducing the power of the President on the one side, and reforming the government to be more representative instead of a two party Us vs Them system. But that is also a democratic process and neither side has had a majority or incentive to do so.
Totally agree that there have been several past failures to reinforce the system and make it less of a good faith / handshake agreement to keep it on the rails.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up and call bullshit on what's happening. It's important to call it what it is. It's important to speak up.
But you knew he doesn’t care. Your highest court ruled that laws don’t apply to the man. He can be a dictator if he wants and „whatcha gonna do ’bout it”?
Protest, support others who protest, annoy the shit out of my representatives, and loudly declare "THIS SHIT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever the opportunity presents itself.
It may become necessary for Trump and Musk to show their potential for brutality before people's minds change, unfortunately. But it has worked, in the past. The Kent State shooting is a good example; the obviously excessive brutality of the state caused a massive increase in willingness to speak out, protest, strike, etc. That massive public response became too large to ignore.
I also recognize that by speaking up I may make myself a target for that brutality. At this point, I've decided "so be it, if that happens, it happens."
Evil wins when good people stand by and do nothing.
You guys did this the last 4 years he was in office and nothing happened. I'm going to sign myself in for another 4 years of screaming while nothing happens.
By the way, posting about how much you hate the government on bluesky is not revolutionary activity, and talking about expecting "brutality" in retaliation shows just how out of touch you are with reality.
In a nation governed by a constitution and laws, absofuckinglutely not. The chief executive is supposed to operate within the bounds of the constitution and the laws created under it.