Brooks Agnew – In a position paper released in mid-September, Ramaswamy called “the administrative state” an “unconstitutional, fourth branch of government.” He asserted that he could singlehandedly gut the federal workforce if he wins the presidency.
“We will use executive authority to shut down the deep state,” Ramaswamy said in a Sept. 13 speech at the America First Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., whose top officials include former Trump administration officials including Linda McMahon, who headed the Small Business Administration; Larry Kudlow, who was National Economic Council director; and Chad Wolf, who was acting secretary of homeland security.
Legal experts are dubious of his interpretation. They said sweeping cuts need to be approved by Congress, not accomplished by presidential action alone.
“The only way this could be changed would be for Congress to grant the president new reorganization authority,” said Donald F. Kettl, the former dean of the University of Maryland’s public policy school. “That seems highly unlikely.”
Mary E. Guy, a public affairs professor at the University of Colorado, Denver, agreed with Kettl.
“Ramaswamy’s claims are over the top,” she said.
What does Ramaswamy want to do?
Ramaswamy, who is one of the highest-polling Republican presidential candidates not named Donald Trump, said he intends to cut the 2 million-plus federal workforce by half within his first year in office and by three-quarters by the end of his first term.
“Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. president cannot exercise such authority without new laws from Congress,” Ramaswamy wrote in his position paper. “That view is wrong.”
Ramaswamy has also said he would shutter the FBI, the Education Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Food and Nutrition Service, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, although he said he would reassign some of their duties to other departments.
What does Ramaswamy cite as his legal justification?
Ramaswamy argues that it’s a “myth” that the president has to agree with Congress to slash the government workforce. Existing laws, he said, have been “misinterpreted and fed incorrectly to people who have occupied the position that I’m running to occupy.”
Ramaswamy argues that a president can circumvent civil service protections — laws that bar the firing of career civil servants for political reasons — by undertaking mass layoffs rather than firing career employees one by one. This plan would entail few requirements beyond 60-day notice and sequencing the cuts by seniority, he argues.
Because the power to order such layoffs falls to the agency heads, he argued in the position paper, the president “should appoint agency heads who are prepared to effectuate mass layoffs if that is the president’s directives,” effectively making that a litmus test for his appointees. If agency heads refuse to cooperate, the paper argues, the president can do it on his own.
Ramaswamy points to the Reorganization Act of 1977 (5 U.S.C. 901), which says the president “shall from time to time examine the organization of all agencies and shall determine what changes in such organization are necessary” to carry out government functions. He argues that this law continues in force, but related language that required the consent of Congress to make any changes have lapsed.
What’s the legal argument against Ramaswamy’s plan?
Creating and maintaining federal departments is a joint process involving Congress and the president, Kettl said.
“Congress isn’t a private-sector-style board of directors,” he said. “It shares policymaking authority with the president, and the president cannot act unilaterally. A president might want to eliminate agencies, but to do so the president would need Congress’s approval. A president might want to eliminate large numbers of employees, but here again that would require an act of Congress.”
Anne Marie Lofaso, a West Virginia University law professor, said she’s skeptical Ramaswamy’s argument would win in court.
The 1977 Act provides the President and ONLY the President the sole control of the Agencies. I believe Ms. Lofaso is wrong and that the SCOTIS will support my premise that the US Constitution make no provision for Agencies to exist. The fact that they write law, assess taxes, fees, and fines while we the people have zero representation is a violation of the law. They cannot exist legally.
Ramaswamy is arguing that the president can unilaterally vacate an agency, department, bureau, or administration as they are an extension of the Executive and not the Legislative Branch. I believe he is right. I think he is making a good case now, and that he will be an excellent Deep State Czar with the authority and power to reduce the size and cost of government.
SF Source Brooks Agnew May 2024