The Purge

[Mr._Clark]

I can't speak to the AI bit, but the rest looks like a fair assessment to me.

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of Brock's primary assertion "Inside the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), teams of young tech operatives are systematically dismantling democratic institutions and replacing them with proprietary artificial intelligence systems."

"Replacing them" includes a link to this article:

Federal Workers Sue to Disconnect DOGE Server

Two federal workers, citing reports that Elon Musk’s associates are operating an illegally connected email server at OPM, seek a restraining order.

www.wired.com

A judge just blocked access, but the issue was not replacing government institutions with proprietary artificial intelligence systems.

>>>A federal judge on Monday temporarily barred the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing troves of sensitive personal data from federal agencies.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled that the Department of Education and its employees may not disclose to DOGE the personally identifying information of six Americans and the members of five union organizations who sued three agencies over DOGE’s access to their sensitive data.<<<

https://www.kxan.com/hill-politics/judge-blocks-doe-opm-from-disclosing-troves-of-sensitive-personal-data-to-doge/

Replacing humans in government jobs with AI may be the goal, but it's not a new idea and Biden had 2,000 AI applications in development:

>>>According to The Washington Post, Musk’s group has started to run sensitive data from government systems through AI programs to analyze spending and determine what could be pruned. This may lead to the elimination of human jobs in favor of automation. As one government official who has been tracking Musk’s DOGE team told the Post, the ultimate aim is to use AI to replace “the human workforce with machines.” (Spokespeople for the White House and DOGE did not respond to requests for comment.) . . . Using AI to make government more efficient is a worthy pursuit, and this is not a new idea. The Biden administration disclosed more than 2,000 AI applications in development across the federal government. <<<

It’s Time to Worry About DOGE’s AI Plans

Welcome to the end of the human civil servant.

www.theatlantic.com

Brock says:

>>>Already, decisions . . . are being made by algorithms that no citizen can vote against and no court can oversee. Your rights are no longer determined by a legal framework you can appeal-they are dictated by a set of terms of service, changeable at the whim of those who control the network. . . . [t]he young operatives now wiring AI models into the Treasury Department . . . " (emphasis added)

What in god's name is he talking about? He consistently uses the present tense and asserts that it is actually happening right now.

He slaps together a few ideas from a few different books, then makes gigantic leap and asserts without evidence, that AI is already in control.

As I see it, without evidence this is just another conspiracy theory.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of Brock's primary assertion "Inside the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), teams of young tech operatives are systematically dismantling democratic institutions and replacing them with proprietary artificial intelligence systems."

"Replacing them" includes a link to this article:

Federal Workers Sue to Disconnect DOGE Server

Two federal workers, citing reports that Elon Musk’s associates are operating an illegally connected email server at OPM, seek a restraining order.

www.wired.com

A judge just blocked access, but the issue was not replacing government institutions with proprietary artificial intelligence systems.

>>>A federal judge on Monday temporarily barred the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing troves of sensitive personal data from federal agencies.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled that the Department of Education and its employees may not disclose to DOGE the personally identifying information of six Americans and the members of five union organizations who sued three agencies over DOGE’s access to their sensitive data.<<<

https://www.kxan.com/hill-politics/judge-blocks-doe-opm-from-disclosing-troves-of-sensitive-personal-data-to-doge/

Replacing humans in government jobs with AI may be the goal, but it's not a new idea and Biden had 2,000 AI applications in development:

>>>According to The Washington Post, Musk’s group has started to run sensitive data from government systems through AI programs to analyze spending and determine what could be pruned. This may lead to the elimination of human jobs in favor of automation. As one government official who has been tracking Musk’s DOGE team told the Post, the ultimate aim is to use AI to replace “the human workforce with machines.” (Spokespeople for the White House and DOGE did not respond to requests for comment.) . . . Using AI to make government more efficient is a worthy pursuit, and this is not a new idea. The Biden administration disclosed more than 2,000 AI applications in development across the federal government. <<<

It’s Time to Worry About DOGE’s AI Plans

Welcome to the end of the human civil servant.

www.theatlantic.com

Brock says:

>>>Already, decisions . . . are being made by algorithms that no citizen can vote against and no court can oversee. Your rights are no longer determined by a legal framework you can appeal-they are dictated by a set of terms of service, changeable at the whim of those who control the network. . . . [t]he young operatives now wiring AI models into the Treasury Department . . . " (emphasis added)

What in god's name is he talking about? He consistently uses the present tense and asserts that it is actually happening right now.

He slaps together a few ideas from a few different books, then makes gigantic leap and asserts without evidence, that AI is already in control.

As I see it, without evidence this is just another conspiracy theory.

Oh, no apology necessary. Like I said, I can't speak to the AI part. Is that what you're stuck on? The rest of the article doesn't even offer food for thought?

I mean, the agenda of the tech-libertarians is there. Musk's attempts to dismantle government are only being inhibited by the courts and a few brave souls saying "You shall not pass!". But, for how long? The AI aspect of it didn't even jump out at me. It was the prospect of privatization of government that grabbed me.

Another thing that came to mind is, what about the evangelical right, who also form a significant part of Trump's base? What will they have to say about techbros worming their way into government? Would there be a schism between them?

Hey, if it's all smoke that comes to nothing, I'll be overjoyed to say my concerns were unjustified.

 

[highfigh]

Who's in charge of the Department of Redundancy Department?

 

[TankTop5]

I know this is an absolute batshit crazy concept but listen to me for a moment.

the United States is the first government in the history of the world that its foundation lays in the Constitution. A document that it’s only purpose is to say what the government is allowed to to and restricts the government.

Our second document states what the Rights of the People are as given by God Almighty and the government cannot infringe on those Rights.

Im well aware that the rest of the world and liberals are loosing their minds that the 2 foundational documents that over overrule every other law in America say what the government can do and what rights citizens have given by God that the government cannot take away. I fully recognize that at every turn people have been trying to chip away with this. They can suck a fatty, but this is America. The constitution in the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. Y’all are about to learn something today.

 

[TankTop5]

Maybe I did not make that clear.

The constitution of the United States says what the government cannot do, it restrained the federal government.

The Bill of Rights states what rights we have from God that the federal government cannot touch.

this is the ultimate law of the United States. Hopefully we get back to us closer as that as possible.

 

[highfigh]

Oh, no apology necessary. Like I said, I can't speak to the AI part. Is that what you're stuck on? The rest of the article doesn't even offer food for thought?

I mean, the agenda of the tech-libertarians is there. Musk's attempts to dismantle government are only being inhibited by the courts and a few brave souls saying "You shall not pass!". But, for how long? The AI aspect of it didn't even jump out at me. It was the prospect of privatization of government that grabbed me.

Another thing that came to mind is, what about the evangelical right, who also form a significant part of Trump's base? What will they have to say about techbros worming their way into government? Would there be a schism between them?

Hey, if it's all smoke that comes to nothing, I'll be overjoyed to say my concerns were unjustified.

The problem is that the US Federal government has been known as an incredibly redundant, inefficient and plodding behemoth for decades, yet they keep making it bigger and more costly. This DOGE thing is needed, but they're swatting a fly with a concrete slab.

 

[highfigh]

I know this is an absolute batshit crazy concept but listen to me for a moment.

the United States is the first government in the history of the world that its foundation lays in the Constitution. A document that it’s only purpose is to say what the government is allowed to to and restricts the government.

Our second document states what the Rights of the People are as given by God Almighty and the government cannot infringe on those Rights.

Im well aware that the rest of the world and liberals are loosing their minds that the 2 foundational documents that over overrule every other law in America say what the government can do and what rights citizens have given by God that the government cannot take away. I fully recognize that at every turn people have been trying to chip away with this. They can suck a fatty, but this is America. The constitution in the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. Y’all are about to learn something today.

That's true, but many governments, ours included, drew from the Magna Carta as the foundation of civil law, but that was through the filter of the period from 1215-1775, under the thumb of the Crown, after three English Civil Wars and the Crown using the colonies to fund their wars with France, etc.

This had a lot to do with why the colonies revolted- it wasn't just about tax stamps.

Mercantilism, Mercantile System, Colonial America

Mercantilism summary, facts, definition, APUSH guide to the Mercantile System and its impact on Colonial America and the 13 Colonies.

www.americanhistorycentral.com

 

[TankTop5]

The problem is that the US Federal government has been known as an incredibly redundant, inefficient and plodding behemoth for decades, yet they keep making it bigger and more costly. This DOGE thing is needed, but they're swatting a fly with a concrete slab.

Is there any other way at this point? Nobody has done anyone done anything meaningful in 4 or 5 decades? No they haven’t, any cuts were meaningless, cat some staff but send enormous sums of money off to nowhere. If anyone has a better plan I’m all ears but right now we need a chainsaw, just no other way

 

[GO-NAD!]

I know this is an absolute batshit crazy concept but listen to me for a moment.

the United States is the first government in the history of the world that its foundation lays in the Constitution. A document that it’s only purpose is to say what the government is allowed to to and restricts the government.

Our second document states what the Rights of the People are as given by God Almighty and the government cannot infringe on those Rights.

Im well aware that the rest of the world and liberals are loosing their minds that the 2 foundational documents that over overrule every other law in America say what the government can do and what rights citizens have given by God that the government cannot take away. I fully recognize that at every turn people have been trying to chip away with this. They can suck a fatty, but this is America. The constitution in the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. Y’all are about to learn something today.

You haven't offered any context with your post, so I'm going to assume it's related to DOGE. If so, it's that very same constitution that is being shoved in DOGE's spokes right now.
Judge Questions Constitutionality of Musk’s DOGE Operation - The New York Times

 

[cpp]

The constitution of the United States says what the government cannot do

And you think Trump freaking cares. The man is a dictator and I feel, my opinion Trump and his govt heads are in place will start working to rewrite the US Constitution to his liking like for starters the 22 Amendment . . Around the globe, when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.

If Trump decided he wanted to hold onto power past 2028, there are at least four paths he could try:

• He could generate a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment directly.
• He could exploit a little-noticed loophole in the amendment that might allow him to run for vice president and then immediately ascend back to the presidency.
• He could run for president again on the bet that a pliant Supreme Court won’t stop him.
• Or he could simply refuse to leave — and put a formal end to America’s democratic experiment
• 
  
• 
  
  
  Trump said back in 2020, “We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years.”
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Mr._Clark]

The constitution of the United States says what the government cannot do, it restrained the federal government.

The Bill of Rights states what rights we have from God that the federal government cannot touch.

this is the ultimate law of the United States. Hopefully we get back to us closer as that as possible.

I'm not sure I follow.

Based on what I've seen so far, the vast majority of the legal challenges to Trump's actions involve laws passed by congress under Article 1 that require the executive branch (Article 2) to do certain things and not do other things.

Simplifying for purposes of discussion, the two main questions are 1) can congress limit the President's ability to fire executive branch employees, and 2) can congress pass laws requiring the President to spend money?

Simplifying (and overstating) for purposes of discussion, the Trump administration has taken the position that any legal restrictions congress puts on the executive branch are unconstitutional, and Trump can ignore laws purporting to limit his ability to fire executive branch employees and laws purporting to spend or not spend purporting to limit his ability to spend or not spend money as he wishes.

This is primarily an article one branch vs article two branch issue, not a bill of rights issue. A secondary issue is whether or not article three courts have the power to resolve disputes between the other two branches of the federal government. The Trump administration has made statements to the effect that "no" the federal courts have no power to decide these issues, and the executive branch has complete power to decide which laws (passed by congress) it will follow.

If these arguments are taken to an extreme, it begs the question why the Constitution bothers to specify that Congress (article 1) and the courts (article 3) exist and have specific powers.

There have also been challenges based on the Privacy Act:

EFF Sues OPM, DOGE and Musk for Endangering the Privacy of Millions

NEW YORK—EFF and a coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina filed a lawsuit today asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans’ private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (...

www.eff.org

I have not ready the complaint, but this appears to be a legal challenge based on existing federal law, not a constitutional challenge. In theory, the Trump administration could take the position that the Privacy Act is unconstitional because it is an attempt by congress to limit executive branch power.

The AP lawsuit is based directly on the bill of rights (1st amendment), but so far the AP has lost.

>>>The news agency had argued that the ban – which Edward Martin, the acting U.S. attorney for D.C, said in court papers emanated from Trump himself – was a violation of its First Amendment rights.<<<

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/nx-s1-5307243/ap-trump-lawsuit-gulf-of-america-mexico

The birthright citizenship case is based on the 14th amendment, but this strikes me as being a somewhat isolated case that is not likely to have much impact on the cases involving the article 1 powers of congress vs the article 2 powers of the executive branch.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/19/politics/trump-cant-end-birthright-citizenship-appeals-court-says/index.html

There might be other cases that involve bill of rights constitutional challenges that I'm not aware of.

One of the problems for citizens seeking to assert challenges based on the bill of rights is proving that there has been violation that harmed the individual in question (standing). Given the lack of transparency, how could an individual prove that DOGE took an action that violated the person's constitutional rights?

Judges have also questioned whether or not DOGE violates the appointments clause of the constitution, but this is an article 2 issue, not a bill of rights issue.

 

[highfigh]

Is there any other way at this point? Nobody has done anyone done anything meaningful in 4 or 5 decades? No they haven’t, any cuts were meaningless, cat some staff but send enormous sums of money off to nowhere. If anyone has a better plan I’m all ears but right now we need a chainsaw, just no other way

If there are no consequences from them doing a shitty job, why would they change? They have acted as if funding is unlimited, but nobody rubs their nose in the piles they leave.

 

[highfigh]

And you think Trump freaking cares. The man is a dictator and I feel, my opinion Trump and his govt heads are in place will start working to rewrite the US Constitution to his liking like for starters the 22 Amendment . . Around the globe, when rulers consolidate power through a cult of personality, they do not tend to surrender it willingly, even in the face of constitutional limits.

If Trump decided he wanted to hold onto power past 2028, there are at least four paths he could try:

• He could generate a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment directly.
• He could exploit a little-noticed loophole in the amendment that might allow him to run for vice president and then immediately ascend back to the presidency.
• He could run for president again on the bet that a pliant Supreme Court won’t stop him.
• Or he could simply refuse to leave — and put a formal end to America’s democratic experiment
  Trump said back in 2020, “We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years.

I just searched for this and Snopes says no-

"But does that loophole really exist? Some maintain it doesn't because the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804 to fix some unexpected issues with the originally specified methods for selecting the President and Vice-President) states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So, one who has already twice been elected President isn't eligible to become Vice-President afterwards and thereby potentially sneak into the presidency again through the back door."

Could Barack Obama Serve as Vice President?

E-mail posits a dual Bill and Hillary Clinton presidency.

www.snopes.com

 

[cpp]

I just searched for this and Snopes says no-

"But does that loophole really exist? Some maintain it doesn't because the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804 to fix some unexpected issues with the originally specified methods for selecting the President and Vice-President) states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So, one who has already twice been elected President isn't eligible to become Vice-President afterwards and thereby potentially sneak into the presidency again through the back door."

Could Barack Obama Serve as Vice President?

E-mail posits a dual Bill and Hillary Clinton presidency.

www.snopes.com

Not sure where I was talking about that snopers would even no about. Never even mentioned VP. Not sure how your comment was even addressed to me.

 

[Mr._Clark]

I just searched for this and Snopes says no-

"But does that loophole really exist? Some maintain it doesn't because the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804 to fix some unexpected issues with the originally specified methods for selecting the President and Vice-President) states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So, one who has already twice been elected President isn't eligible to become Vice-President afterwards and thereby potentially sneak into the presidency again through the back door."

Could Barack Obama Serve as Vice President?

E-mail posits a dual Bill and Hillary Clinton presidency.

www.snopes.com

Snopes presented arguments on both sides of the issue (can a 2-term president be a VP then serve a 3rd term), and snopes said "some maintain" the VP loophole doesn't exist, but snopes followed with this:

>>>Again we bump into some problems of literalness, though, because some would argue that a person who has already run up against the limits of the 22nd Amendment isn't "constitutionally ineligible" to be President (i.e., that person doesn't fail to meet one or more of the requirements specified in Article II of the constitution, such as being at least 35 years old or a natural-born citizen of the United States) but is merely constitutionally ineligible to be elected President. Under this interpretation, a former two-term President would still be eligible, under the law, to obtain and hold the office of Vice President through election or appointment to that position.

Ultimately, the only answer to this hypothetical is that there is no answer: this is an interpretive legal issue that, should it ever arise, would have to be decided by the judicial branch of the U.S. government.<<<

To my mind the conclusion is correct because the Constitution is not entirely clear, and the Supreme Court would need to decide.

Having said that, if Trump were to try the VP-3rd term strategy, it wouldn't surprise me if this Supreme Court were to rule in his favor. But, that is of course just a guess.