The Trump Dellinger Firing: Why It is a Unconstitutional Ass Fuck Train Wreck

The Latest Constitutional Shitstorm

The Supreme Court finds itself dealing with yet another constitutional crisis stemming from Trump's blatant disregard for Article II limitations. The emergency appeal in Bessent v. Dellinger isn't just another legal squabble - it's a direct assault on the fundamental separation of powers established in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Constitutional Framework: What's Actually at Stake

Let's cut through the bullshit and look at what the Constitution actually says. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (the Appointments Clause) doesn't give presidents carte blanche to fire whoever the fuck they want. The Supreme Court made this crystal clear in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), when it told FDR he couldn't just fire FTC commissioners because he didn't like them.

The constitutional principles at play here are fundamental:

1. The Appointments Clause's limitation on removal power (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

2. Congress's power to create and maintain independent agencies (Article I, Section 8)

3. The Take Care Clause requiring faithful execution of laws (Article II, Section 3)

The Legal Precedents Trump's Trying to Bulldoze

Trump's firing Dellinger flies in the face of decades of settled constitutional law:

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) established that while the president has broad removal power over pure executive officers, this power isn't unlimited. The Supreme Court specifically carved out exceptions for independent agencies in Humphrey's Executor.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) went even further, explicitly upholding the constitutionality of independent counsels and their protection from arbitrary removal. The Court's 7-1 decision made it damn clear that presidential removal power can be restricted when it comes to independent investigative functions.

Constitutional Powers and Their Limits

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) explicitly gives Congress - not the president - the power of the purse. Trump's attempts to freeze congressionally mandated funding violate not just statutory law but fundamental constitutional principles established in Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).

The Supreme Court firmly established in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) that the president can't just ignore Congress's statutory mandates. The Court's ruling in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) further reinforced that presidents can't selectively block spending Congress has authorized.

The Constitutional Crisis in Action

The DOJ's emergency appeal highlights several key constitutional violations:

1. Violation of the For-Cause Removal Protection established in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010)

2. Infringement of Congress's Spending Power under Article I

3. Breach of the Take Care Clause's faithful execution requirement

Historical Constitutional Context

The founding fathers weren't fucking around when they established checks and balances. In Federalist No. 51, Madison explicitly warned about the danger of concentrated power: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

The Supreme Court reinforced this in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), establishing that presidential power is at its lowest when acting against congressional will - exactly what's happening in the Dellinger case.

Constitutional Separation of Powers Under Attack

The attempt to fire Dellinger represents a direct assault on:

1. The independent agency model upheld in Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958)

2. Congressional oversight power established in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)

3. The principle of limited executive power outlined in Youngstown

The Broader Constitutional Implications

If Trump's interpretation prevails, it would effectively overturn:

1. The Morrison v. Olson framework for independent investigations

2. The Humphrey's Executor protections for independent agencies

3. The McGrain v. Daugherty foundation for congressional oversight

Constitutional Remedies and Solutions

The Constitution provides clear remedies for executive overreach:

1. Congressional oversight (Article I, Section 5)

2. Judicial review (Article III, Section 2)

3. Impeachment powers (Article I, Section 3)

Looking Ahead: The Supreme Court's Constitutional Duty

The Court's ruling in Bessent v. Dellinger will determine whether:

1. Morrison v. Olson remains valid precedent

2. The unitary executive theory gains dangerous new ground

3. Independent agencies maintain their constitutional protection

Conclusions

The constitutional framework established by the founders and reinforced through centuries of Supreme Court precedent leaves no room for Trump's attempted power grab. From Marbury to Morrison, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld limitations on executive power and the necessity of independent oversight.

Constitutional and Legal Citations

1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

2. Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)

3. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

4. Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010)

5. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

6. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)

7. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

8. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)

9. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

10. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)