Hereward Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Sivin said: Didn't the UK do that? No. The company that builds the UK's nuclear weapons is a private concern, but they are in the US as well, so what's the difference. 1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said: Didn't they have serious problems with accidents and other safety violations and now most of the program is owned or operated by American corporations? I mean, does anyone want that for here? No, there were some minor issues after the company that included Lockheed Martin took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: "Power" will be more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illrede Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 My election night soundtrack/anthem was "Runaway" and I stand by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 5 hours ago, Mexal said: Aren't they paid "consultants" for Exxon? Yes they are. Still, pundits are saying that this does give Tillerson extra credibility because those that endorse him are fairly well respected in Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Fez said: Problem is, the Department of Energy has almost nothing to do with that; that's the Department of the Interior mostly. The only actual energy production DoE is involved with is nuclear energy, and its main focus is overseeing the US nuclear weapons program. Perry has experience and may be a good conservative fit for running a few different departments, but DoE is a weird spot for him. What could happen? 4 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: He got it precisely because he said he wanted to abolish it. I don't really understand this logic. Can the head of one of these departments actually get rid of the department? I don't think that happens from within, but i must admit that I don't know exactly how this would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 23 minutes ago, Swordfish said: I don't really understand this logic. Can the head of one of these departments actually get rid of the department? I don't think that happens from within, but i must admit that I don't know exactly how this would work. I suppose it would be pretty easy to bring it to a grinding halt, if you're at the head. To just bog it down in nonsensical red tape and procedure and what not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I suppose it would be pretty easy to bring it to a grinding halt, if you're at the head. To just bog it down in nonsensical red tape and procedure and what not. I was thinking more along the lines of: Just fire everyone. Make it an empty agency. Gut the enforcement. Nuclear power plants will totally self police without any oversight, right? Companies would never just dump their toxic waste in the rivers or in that vacant lot behind the plant, right? We just need to remove that unnecessary regulation to get business moving again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Seems like if he really wanted to get rid of it, there would be ways he could make that happen that would be more effective. but again, I don't know what it would take to officially get rid of something like the DoE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Swordfish said: I don't really understand this logic. Can the head of one of these departments actually get rid of the department? I don't think that happens from within, but i must admit that I don't know exactly how this would work. Easy way to think about agencies - however they were created is how they can be abolished. So, if they're created by legislation, it would take an act of Congress to abolish it. BUT, if an agency was created by executive order (like the EPA), it can be abolished by another executive order. The only caveat would be if the agency design statute/order had some sunset provision in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Easy way to think about agencies - however they were created is how they can be abolished. So, if they're created by legislation, it would take an act of Congress to abolish it. BUT, if an agency was created by executive order (like the EPA), it can be abolished by another executive order. The only caveat would be if the agency design statute/order had some sunset provision in it. Got it. Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 34 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Easy way to think about agencies - however they were created is how they can be abolished. So, if they're created by legislation, it would take an act of Congress to abolish it. BUT, if an agency was created by executive order (like the EPA), it can be abolished by another executive order. The only caveat would be if the agency design statute/order had some sunset provision in it. Not so fast. While the EPA itself was ceated by an executive order, it was a reorganization to centralize the government's environmental action that was approved by Congress. Such action came from the National Environmental Policy Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.