Do you have a reference for "clearly", from case law or a lawyer/judges perspective? IANAL, and I don't see any commenting here.

What do you think is going on exactly that there’s any remote chance that someone who isn’t a political appointee or employee of the government can be given the power to stop all payments to federal contractors or abolish Congressionally established agencies? The President doesn’t have those powers, much less Elon Musk.

I already said I'm not a lawyer. My perspective and opinion aren't relevant.

You don't have to be a lawyer to have perspective or opinion on the law. It just means you're probably less technically educated than most lawyers.

While it's true that a perspective and opinion can be made by me, it's in no way tied to the reality of how the courts will view it, which is all that matters, which is why I want an informed perspective and opinion, from the domain of law. A good example for the value of people's opinions vs how something is interpreted is Roe vs Wade.

If you have an informed reference that helped you achieve such clarity, I'm very interested. Unfortunately, my armchair has a broken leg, so I'm unable to use it at the moment. And, search engines are completely failing me.

that's a little self-flagellatory. I don't think it takes a whole lot of legal education to recognize that what is happening is not legal.

most lawyers aren't constitutional scholars either. do you really think an expertise in personal injury law in Rhode Island makes one more qualified to recognize that an unelected billionaire shutting down organizations without any Congressional approval or appointment is illegal?

have you ever read the constitution, or thought about governance for even 5 minutes? do you have any understanding of the history of this country, or do we need to direct the nearest 1st grader to your location to explain it to you?

I don't disagree, but I read this as unnecessary hyperbole to an honest question.

its not an honest question. what is happening is so clearly and obviously illegal and unconstitutional that literal children understand it.

Then why not just explain it? It would be far more persuasive than acting rabid.

The downvotes are because Musk has a large personality cult, especially on tech oriented sites like HN.

Also because they can easily afford to completely change the voting system on these sites lol