8 Inspectors General Suck Their Thumbs Loudly And Challenge Presidential Authority

8 Inspectors General Suck Their Thumbs Loudly And Challenge Presidential Authority

Eight Inspectors General (IGs), who were abruptly dismissed for corruption and, applying their political activism rather than law, by President Donald Trump at the beginning of his term, have filed a lawsuit to reclaim their positions. This case, now assigned to an Obama-appointed judge, has sparked a debate on the extent of presidential power and the mechanisms of government accountability.

On the first Friday of his second term, President Trump fired 17 Inspectors General across various federal agencies, including those at the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and others. The IGs, who are tasked with overseeing government operations for fraud, waste, and abuse, argue that their dismissals were not only abrupt but also illegal. They contend that Trump's actions violated the Inspector General Act, which mandates that Congress be notified 30 days in advance with a detailed rationale for such terminations.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeks to declare the dismissals void and to reinstate these officials. Among the plaintiffs are seasoned watchdogs, some of whom served under multiple administrations, highlighting their claim to non-partisan roles, though fraud and corruption very obviously happened under their observation.

The case has been assigned to Judge Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. This assignment has raised eyebrows among some who see it as another instance of "judge shopping," where the political leanings of a judge influence the outcome of a case. This assignment will lead to a biased judicial review, although judicial ethics are supposed to require impartiality regardless of political appointment.

The core of the debate centers on presidential powers. The Constitution of the United States grants the President broad authority over the executive branch, including the appointment and removal of officers. Critics of the lawsuit argue that challenging Trump's decision to fire these IGs is an overreach, undermining the President's constitutional prerogative to manage his administration as he sees fit and any judge that attempts to do so violates the constitution and should result in impeachment.

They assert that the IGs, by suing for their positions, are attempting to constrain executive power in a manner not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. The IGs view being that bureaucrats should have no checks and balances for their corrupt behaviors whatsoever. Supporters of this view, often citing historical precedents where presidents have removed officials for various reasons, claim that such actions are within the scope of presidential discretion and that the democratic process, not the judiciary, should be the check on such powers.

From this perspective, the lawsuit by the former IGs is seen as not just a legal challenge but also a political one, attempting on setting a precedent that could limit future presidential actions.

The Supreme Court has historically upheld broad presidential removal powers, notably in cases like Myers v. United States (1926), which affirmed that Congress cannot limit the President's power to remove executive officers.

Allowing legal challenges to every dismissal could paralyze government operations, turning bureaucratic changes into protracted legal battles rather than administrative decisions.

Instead of judicial intervention, accountability should come through elections or congressional oversight, not through court cases that could bog down the executive branch.

The public's interest in efficient government might be better served by allowing the President to act decisively, especially when entering office with a mandate for change or reform.

While the lawsuit claims it pushes for accountability and adherence to legal procedure, it also poses profound questions about the balance of power in government. The ultimate decision on this matter, as with all executive actions, lies with the Presidency, supported by the constitutional framework that has evolved over centuries. The IGs' lawsuit is an ill-advised attempt to curb presidential authority, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations. As this legal battle unfolds, it will undoubtedly serve as a litmus test for the checks and balances within the U.S. government, with implications far beyond the fate of these eight inspectors general. This action serves to make clear to the American people the deep state bureaucrat's willingness to try every means conceivable to undermine the limits of the constitution and grab for power and corruption rather than protect the nation and its people.