Insubordination.


The latest brouhaha as the Trump administration begins was the firing of Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General. There was a Trump mistake involved here. That mistake was appointing someone known to be an activist to be Acting Attorney General as the Democrat Party slow walks the Jeff Sessions nomination through the Senate.

Yates said she would not defend the President’s executive order to ban immigration from nations identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

[Source: Why Yates Had to Go, Editors, National Review]

[From the editorial] Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.

Yates, like most Democrats, objects to everything that President Trump is doing. That’s OK. She can resign. But she is not supposed to be selling the Democrat Party side of the argument.

So what was Yates plan: insubordination. From her perspective, what did she have to lose. She would have been dismissed this week or next as soon as Sessions was confirmed. She did not issue this statement on the grounds that the order is illegal. She declined to take a definitive position on that question. Her decision, rather, was based on a desire to go from an unknown bureaucrat to a “champion” of progressive/ statism.

I suspect she was successful in that regard, but, as the saying goes, “Don’t let the door hit you in the *ss when you leave.”

Roy Filly

 

Advertisements

About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Insubordination.

  1. Starchild says:

    “Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power.” This is true, and a widely misunderstood point. Constitutionally speaking, ALL executive branch employees, not just the top few thousand, serve at the pleasure of the president. The tradition of presidents only replacing the top personnel, and allowing the vast majority to continue on in their jobs is just that, a tradition, not constitutionally required. Trump could fire them all tomorrow, and be within his legal rights to do so.

    The next part the National Review gets wrong, however: “If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.” Actually there is a third way, and Sally Yates took it – resist from the inside unless/until you are dismissed. If you’re standing up for what’s right, as she was, there is nothing dishonorable in taking that course of action.

    The American Revolution itself was a major case of mass insubordination – and entirely justified.

  2. S D says:

    Starchild, the Amer. Rev. was NOT insubordination in any form. It was based on King George failing to uphold his agreements with the individual colonies as per their charters. It was somewhat similar to what we call breach of contract today. The colonists sought justice and reconciliation prior to declaring independence. The basis was lawful, and executed orderly. It was not a rebellion nor anarchy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s