To the editor: I assist UC Berkeley Faculty of Regulation Dean Erwin Chemerinsky’s place on defending sure federal company executives from arbitrary firings by the present president. Nevertheless, I want he would have been extra direct in displaying how giving such energy to the president might nullify the necessary targets and features of specific companies.
Chemerinsky identified that present regulation offers that division heads may be disciplined, which incorporates termination. However that should be completed for trigger — in different phrases, with precise causes tied to the job somewhat than the whims of the president. Companies which have already been affected by President Trump’s illegal removals embrace the Nationwide Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Alternative Fee and the Federal Election Fee.
Chemerinsky famous the Trump administration’s place that “even civil service protections courting to 1883 are unconstitutional.” For many who won’t know what meaning, it’s easy: Civil service protections make sure that solely certified persons are employed by authorities companies. They have to cross sure checks and a probationary interval earlier than being deemed certified, everlasting staff.
And, even when everlasting, they are often disciplined and terminated for trigger.
Civil service legal guidelines changed the corrupt spoils system, the place presidents used authorities jobs to reward their pursuits, associates and monetary supporters. You’ll be able to solely think about what that did to America and can do once more if we go backward.
This has already began, so be careful.
Michael Harvey Miller, Pasadena
The author is a retired legal professional.
..
To the editor: Chemerinsky states that the “administration is counting on an excessive view of presidential energy generally known as the unitary govt concept, which purports that Congress can’t regulate the operation of the chief department of presidency in any means.”
Article I, Part 7 of the U.S. Structure offers Congress the facility to override a presidential veto. This appears to imply that Congress can “regulate” the chief department.
Larry Keffer, Mission Hills
