Letters to the Editor: You’ll really miss civil service protections when they’re gone

To the editor: I support UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky’s position on protecting certain federal agency executives from arbitrary firings by the current president. However, I wish he would have been more direct in showing how giving such power to the president could nullify the important goals and functions of particular agencies.

Chemerinsky pointed out that current law provides that department heads can be disciplined, which includes termination. But that must be done for cause — in other words, with actual reasons tied to the job rather than the whims of the president. Agencies that have already been affected by President Trump’s unlawful removals include the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Federal Election Commission.

Chemerinsky noted the Trump administration’s position that “even civil service protections dating to 1883 are unconstitutional.” For those who might not know what that means, it’s simple: Civil service protections ensure that only qualified people are employed by government agencies. They must pass certain tests and a probationary period before being deemed qualified, permanent employees.

And, even when permanent, they can be disciplined and terminated for cause.

Civil service laws replaced the corrupt spoils system, where presidents used government jobs to reward their interests, friends and financial supporters. You can only imagine what that did to America and will do again if we go backward.

This has already started, so watch out.

Michael Harvey Miller, Pasadena

The writer is a retired attorney.
..

To the editor: Chemerinsky states that the “administration is relying on an extreme view of presidential power known as the unitary executive theory, which purports that Congress cannot regulate the operation of the executive branch of government in any way.”

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to override a presidential veto. This seems to mean that Congress can “regulate” the executive branch.

Larry Keffer, Mission Hills