While he's digging into the cases there are a few decisions I'd like him to peruse -- Marbury, Barnette, Youngstown, RAV v St Paul, Payton v NY, etc

What is happening now is not just lawless; it also has no relationship to any serious notion of efficiency, whether governmental or private-sector.

A rational decision to cut (again, assuming legal authority) would have to rest upon a reasoned judgment that the cuts are themselves cost-beneficial. DOGE is not doing that (let alone in public with input from the public, those with subject-matter expertise, etc.).

Congress determined, with far more process and democratic legitimacy than the haphazard extra-statutory DOGE process, that the public benefits of these expenditures were greater than the costs.

Federal staff and grantees whose work ranges from caring for veterans to National Park maintenance, to basic scientific research, do things that offer public benefits that would have to be weighed before any *rational* decision to cut could be made, even assuming legal authority.

In some cases (like IRS employees) we can be certain that the dismissals will cost the government (and the public) far more than any savings in avoided salaries/benefits; in many others dismissals are very likely not worth it. Consider public health researchers, FAA staff, etc.

(and correspondingly, whether the firings/cuts provide cost the public more than they benefit it).

I'd love to be included.

Start ups say a lot of things