Getting calls about a viral post saying Biden exempted Members from the federal vaxx mandate, which is a great excuse for me to lecture poor reporters about statutory authority Congress gave POTUS over Title 5 employees and the corresponding lack of power over Title 2 employees.
For the record (and setting aside any inherent constitutional authority as POTUS, which may also be sufficient), POTUS has explicit authority to make regulations for title 5 employees in 5 USC 3301, 3302, and 7301).
Also a good reminder that whatever constitutional authority POTUS has, the vast, vast majority of authority in the modern presidency is derived from statutory grants of power from Congress.
Side note: this is not an "end the current authorized wars" plea; it's a plea to include sunset provisions in every future AUMF, such that passive congressional inaction can end wars, rather than needing affirms ice supermajorities to do so.
The natural state of a republic is peace, and it should take regular legislative renewals to sustain wars. This also has the benefit of having current representatives approve ongoing wars.
Sunsets flip the equation to more naturally achieve that outcome.
People saying "in normal circumstances you'd want clear congressional authorization, but we're in an emergency---and Congress is hopelessly unproductive--- so POTUS has to do it" are a (longstanding) part of the reason we are where we are in legislative-executive power dynamics.
I'm strongly of the belief federal vaccine mandates are constitutional, and I also think they are probably good policy. But I am very skeptical that claiming OSHA authority here is anything close to congressional intent to delegate mandatory vaccination authority is silly.
"There's a platonic ideal out there of a...party that has all it's members on the same page and operates perfectly. It's a fiction!"
"Look, this is a congressional history conference, so at the least we should be thinking history. And we should be thinking about answering the phone when a reporter calls and giving them something that's reasonably true."
[SLAPS TABLE AND SMILES]
No doubt people threatening violence or disruptions to proceedings at school board meetings are out of bounds and should be prevented from doing so, but let's not pretend school board meetings weren't hotbeds of lunatics screaming crazy shit long before COVID. That's not new.
No one should be intimidating public officials, and anyone threatening violence or trying to end meetings via disruptions should be barred and/or punished.
But people waiting their turn to get 3 minutes yelling intense views at the board? That's how local government works.
Like, my standard advice to people who want to make change in their community is to to get off Twitter and go yell at a local official. That's what you do. You do NOT threaten people or try to wreck the process, but you do have to go voice strong opinions.
Don't underestimate how many state legislators nationwide are terrified of the politics of abortion in a post-Roe world.
Roe and subsequent court rulings have essentially allowed conservative state legislators to escape direct responsibility for abortion legislation, either by ignoring it or taking extreme positions that never become actual implemented law.
Faced with the prospect of actual abortion bans and a conservative base primed by years of position-taking without responsibility, a fair number of legislators are going to feel the squeeze for the first time, as the extreme positions collide with constituent reality.