FTC Tells Staff To Stop Calling the Agency 'Independent' in Complaints

An anonymous reader shares a report: Staff at the Federal Trade Commission have been instructed to no longer refer to the agency as "independent" in complaints, according to an email obtained by The Verge.

Truth in advertising

[Tim the Gecko]

Isn't this just reflecting the reality that the Congress has taken a back seat and the Executive is completely in control? Perhaps the GDR and the DPRK should have edited themselves in the same way.

Re:Truth in advertising

[Can'tNot]

You can always make the claim that no one is independent from anyone, because the potential for blackmail and murder is ever-present. That doesn't really tell the whole story though.

Archibald Cox was not independent from Nixon, because Nixon could fire him. On the other hand, as it turned out, Nixon couldn't really fire him. And so, in truth, Archibald Cox did have a measure of independence.

Now, today, this is a different circumstance. It's impossible to hold Trump accountable for anything he does, and so while the FTC might have been independent in the past that is no longer the case.

Re:

[saloomy]

If it was meant to be independent, we would have articulated as such in the constitution. It's not too late either. We can make independent branches of government all we want. We just have to amend the constitution. Has congress done that? No. If it does, thats another mater. For right now, it isn't independent not should it be. That isn't how the law works. Read the constitution, and then argue otherwise.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

All "Officers" and their Officers while at the command of the Executive ultimately derive their power from Congress because only Congress can actually create the Offices for the Executive to then command and thusly Congress has the vote on their very existence. They can also allow or restrict the amount of power the Executive has over them but that is within certain limits, once that office is created and an Officer appointed then the Executive retains certain rights on their operation.

ArtII.S2.C2.3.6 Crea [congress.gov]

Re:Truth in advertising

[jacks smirking reven]

This isn't exactly so cut and dry: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [wikipedia.org] and Humphrey's Executor v. United States [wikipedia.org]

"The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. The Court held that the latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with statutory conditions enacted by Congress, but the former serve at the pleasure of the President and may be removed at his discretion. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-judicial body because it adjudicated cases and promulgated rules. Thus, the President could not fire a member solely for political reasons. Therefore, Humphrey's firing was improper."

So depends on what one's definition of "independent" is but if the President cannot fire the director without approval and the funding comes from Congress that is more independent than most agencies.

Re:

[HiThere]

Not over the entire government. The president only has direct authority over the executive branch...and plausibly the military. Congress has had agencies that were under it's control. It may still. And so may the Judicial branch. (The judicial branch has less leverage in getting such agencies, but I suspect that they control the court records keeping.)

Re:

[mysidia]

Not over the entire government.

Wrong. Definitely over the entire government.

Article. II. Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The constitution states very clearly the executive power shall be Vested in a president, and that means all executive powers are excluded from being vested in any person who is not the president.

Congress' power is solely legislative, and the Federal courts' power is solely judicial. They have zero executive powers, and C

Re:

[maladroit]

The Supreme Court disagrees:

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court decision regarding the United States President's power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court unanimously held that the President did not have this power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Essentially, "executive power" is the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States

Re:Truth in advertising

[Xylantiel]

What you are saying is a false narrative. From article 2 section 3: "he [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The president's authority is to execute the laws passed by the congress (the article 1 body). In fact, the president does not execute the laws his personal self, but is supposed to run an executive organization that executes the law, NOT his will. This is tantamount to the definition of what it means to have a constitutional republic instead of a dictatorship.

Re:

[mysidia]

Wrong.

From article 2 section 3: "he [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The president's authority is to execute the laws passed by the congress

Your statement is a half-truth. In other words incorrect.

The president's duty is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, But the supreme law is the US Constitution, and the Constitution places limits on congress' authority to legislate to specific enumerated powers, and even within those powers there are additional limita

Libertarians are incels, like "mysidia"

[cpurdy]

Wrong.

(Well, gee, that was a compelling argument.)

The user "mysidia" is an incel libertarian, spouting nonsense known in legal circles as the Unitary Executive Theory, which is anti-constitutional (and thus clearly supported by Justice Thomas on the Republican Supreme Court):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Orgasmatron]

The Executive has always been completely in control of the executive branch of government. There are three branches of the federal government - executive, legislative and judicial. There is no "independent" fourth branch of government. If you want one, pass an amendment. Until then, stop pretending that one can be made by statute.

Re:

[tragedy]

The Executive has always been completely in control of the executive branch of government.

Yep. If there's one thing all the founders could definitely agree on when they wrote the constitution, it was the Enlightenment principle of the divine right of Kings.

Re:Accuracy In Language

[Tim the Gecko]

The Federal Trade Commission(FTC) has never ever been an independent organization. The "Independent" self label was always marketing(a lie).

It's funny that we're discussing matters of enormous constitutional importance, but what I most care about is that you didn't put a space before either of the opening brackets :)

Re:

[SlashbotAgent]

but what I most care about is that you didn't put a space before either of the opening brackets :)

I have shamed my grammar teacher. How can I ever make it up to her. She truly did not deserve me. LOL!

Re:

[AnthonyCastanza]

This is a lie. Legally the FTC is an "independent agency" under the law. Stop bootlicking the fascist in chief.

Re:Accuracy In Language

[ZipNada]

>> Legally the FTC is an "independent agency"

I did some checking and you are correct.
https://thelawtoknow.com/2024/... [thelawtoknow.com]

"The FTC was conceived as a specialized, independent agency with the authority to investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition, a broader and more flexible mandate than that provided under the Sherman Act."

"Commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms, ensuring continuity and reducing susceptibility to abrupt changes in political leadership. To preserve bipartisan balance, no more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party."

Re:

[fortfive]

This is an issue of degree rather than absolute. Different government agencies can have varying degrees of independence. At the extreme would be the Federal Reserve Bank. It's established, staffed, and funded by government, but legally cannot be compelled to act at the prompting of any other government actor.

ZipNada's response below is also accurate, and demonstrates a lesser but still profound degree of independence, maybe better characterized as bipartisan.

Re:

[HiThere]

That depends on "independent of what?". Nothing can be totally independent, and if it's totally dependent you have "is a part of". So there are certainly contexts where the FTC could reasonably claim to be "independent". But it's a claim that needs a lot of examination, and probably shouldn't be made without such examination in each particular class of cases.

Good

[ArchieBunker]

I appreciate societies that just put the bribes out in the open. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't happen.

Who is instructing the FTC?

[KingFatty]

It's unclear who is driving the inctructions to remove 'independent'. The Verge article is unclear because it says that FTC directed the staff. So we are to believe the FTC is willing giving up its own power? The article mentions "Republican leadership at the FTC" are not pushing back. But that raises the question - pushing back against what?