Linda McMahon tries to walk back shutting down education department

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Independent

Monday 10 March 2025 07:27 EDT


Linda McMahon tried to walk back the shutting down of the Department of Education despite previously noting her “mission” was to dismantle the agency. On Friday, the president was expected to sign an executive order tasking his freshly confirmed education secretary to dissolve the federal department, before the White House reversed course.

McMahon later confirmed she believed her job is to secure a near-impossible three-fifths supermajority, or 60 votes, needed in the Senate to abolish the agency – but said that she would not simply walk away and abandon the department. Republicans currently hold a slim 53 to 47 seat majority in the Upper Chamber.

“This is not a turn off the lights and walk out of the department,” McMahon told NewsNation Friday. “It’s in close consultation with Congress and looking at how the needs of students can best be serviced.”

The Education Department oversees the $1.6 trillion student loan programs, administers Pell Grants that help low-income pupils attend university, funds programs to support those with disabilities and living in poverty, and enforces civil rights law that prevents race or sex-based discrimination in federally-funded schools.

Read more: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/linda-mcmahon-education-department-trump-b2712138.html

---

One more time. The Executive Branch has NO AUTHORITY to shut down/eliminate a Department.

Signed by President Jimmy Carter 10/17/79 (Summary) -

S.210 - An act to establish a Department of Education, and for other purposes.

FULL TEXT (PDF)

(this was created out of what was previously the "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" )

[Montauk6]

1. Wow, she's faker than the industry that made her!

[LymphocyteLover]

2. WTAF!!! LMAO!!! Trump's said he wants this multiple times!!!!

she will NEVER get 60 Senate votes for this insanity.

But I guess it's nice they are trying the legislative route...

WHY didn't they do that for USAID?

[JT45242]

3. There is nowhere that a supermajority is required for .... Repubs could abolish the filibuster anytime that they want

There are only a handful of things that require supermajority according to the consitution (most important/common here) : overriding a veto, treaties, ratifying new amendments (if it goes through this process), reinstating confederate rebels, and the removal from office step of impeach and remove.

Whether the Republican senators will want their names as killing departments of the federal government that people in their state rely on is another matter. But, if push comes to shove, these cowards in the Senate will likely change the rules and do whatever it is that Putin and MUsk decree.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. "There is nowhere that a supermajority is required for .... "

S.J.Res.37 - A joint resolution requiring the advice and consent of the Senate or an Act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty and authorizing related litigation, and for other purposes.

Here is the NDAA (for FY24) -

H.R.2670 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

In part, what was inserted in the above -

SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM
THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATION.

(a) Opposition of Congress to Suspension, Termination, Denunciation,
or Withdrawal From North Atlantic Treaty.--The President shall not
suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the
North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds
of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) Limitation on the Use of Funds.--No funds authorized or
appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly,
any decision on the part of any United States Government official to
suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the
North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington,

(snip)

[BadgerKid]

5. Pray that no more than 19 Dems/Independents are absent. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I doubt that you would have that many out - especially for something like this.

[JT45242]

7. Correct for NATO -- not for Linda McMahon dismantling the department of education

your post is correct for a different topic.

IO work in the education industry and I am terrified of what wrestling lady is going to do to education for both my livelihood and for my younger son who is currently in college.

My point was that dismantling a department does not require a supermajority. I did include treaties as one of the few things that a super majority is needed.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. You wrote

There is nowhere that a supermajority is required for ....

I gave an example of where it DOES exist and it is actually one that I just discovered over the weekend because that law was just passed only recently.

I expect of the thousands and thousands of laws, there are other provisions like that somewhere.

So the point is that you can't "broadbrush".

And unless the Senate changes it's cloture Rule of 60 votes ( "super-majority" ), you DO need that "super majority". And although Thune could also be a liar by claiming he would never change the Rule, when this subject came up back in 2021 to get the 2 VRA bills enacted and then with the later desire to codify Roe, there were actually more than Manchin and Sinema who objected to changing the Rule at the time. You also had at least 3 other Republicans in addition to Thune who publicly indicated this -

The Senate filibuster is a hurdle to any national abortion bill. Democrats are campaigning on it


By CHRISTINE FERNANDO
Updated 7:42 AM EDT, May 19, 2024


(snip)

Several high-ranking members of the Senate GOP — including Sens. John Thune of South Dakota, John Cornyn of Texas and John Barrasso of Wyoming — have said they are firmly against lifting the filibuster. Thune and Cornyn are running to replace McConnell when he steps down from leadership after the November election.

Sen. Jim Lankford, R-Okla., said this past week that GOP senators have discussed the issue during private meetings, and that he and others have said they want promises from those running for leader that they will not change the rules.

(snip)