As far as I can determine, the Departments were first established by President Washington, but I can find no relevant information as to how he established them. Is there a process which must be followed, such as some congressional vote, or can it be done at the whim of the incumbent president? Through what channels must the president traverse in order to create, nullify, or split a department? If there are such channels, what historical documents define their use? Is there any legislation or court precedent to limit/expand the presidential capacity to do so?
I'm interested in legislature/judicial but particularly in the executive branch. The idea of forming a government from nothing is fascinating to me. Couple questions:
Once the law was set, did the cabinet heads have actual departments to start off, did they hire people from scratch?
Before the various departments were created, did George Washington just go at it alone?
How were laws enforced with such a small government?
No more specific questions then that but I find it a fascinating topic and not a lot online.
Based on DOJ releases and recently filed civil complaints, the alleged unlawful acts took place between 2011 and 2019, and impacted those who worked as U.S.-based aerospace engineers, engineering technicians, machinists, welders, electricians, pipe fitters, and/or millwrights on outsourced engineering projects for any of the following companies:
(1) Pratt & Whitney (a subsidiary of Raytheon Technologies Corp.),
(2) QuEST Global Services-Na, Inc.,
(3) Belcan LLC,
(4) Cyient, Inc.,
(5) Agilis Engineering, Inc., or
(6) Parametric Solutions, Inc.
In an article entitled The Decay of American Political Institutions, Francis Fukuyama argues that the United States is undergoing a period of political decay. His first proposition, the one I wish to discuss here, is that relative to other liberal democracies, the judiciary and legislature (and the two major political parties) continue to play outsized roles in American government at the expense of Executive Branch bureaucracies. He contends that Americans’ traditional distrust of government has lead to judicial solutions for administrative problems, and that this arrangement is a very expensive and inefficient way to manage public administration. He argues that the “judicialization of administration” makes implementing sound public policy almost impossible.*
I have several questions:
- (1) Is the “judicialization of administration” a real problem and is he correct in asserting that it is acute enough to contribute to the decline of American political institutions?
- (2) Assuming he’s correct, are there any examples backed by empirical analysis that make his assertion true (other than the one I provided)?
- (3) If he’s incorrect, how so? What counterfactuals contest his principal assertion?
*See this example from the linked article above: >During the 1970s the Port of Oakland initiated plans to dredge the harbor in anticipation of the new, larger classes of container ships then coming into service. The plan, however, had to be approved by a host of governmental agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the EPA, and their counterparts in the State of California. A succession of alternative plans for disposing of toxic materials dredged from the harbor was challenged in the courts, and each successive plan entailed prolonged delays and higher costs. The reaction of the EPA to these lawsuits was to retreat into a defensive crouch and go passive. The final plan to proceed with the dredging was not forthcoming until 1994, at an ultimate cost many times the original estimates.
Introduced: Sponsor: Rep. Joaquin Castro [D-TX20]
This bill was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs which will consider it before sending it to the House floor for consideration.
Rep. Joaquin Castro [D-TX20] is a member of the committee.
