11 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserComplete non-sequitur, joe.
FMF thinks the supreme court writes the constitution instead of making judgements based on interpretation of a document available to all.
You are so eager to try to land your lame punches that you often type utter nonsense.
Try again.
Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?
11 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFDemocratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.
Complete non-sequitur, joe.
You are so eager to try to land your lame punches that you often type utter nonsense.
Try again.
Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?
Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)
And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers&rdquo😉 are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.
Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.
White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way.
The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.
The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFYour schrodinger's cat view of unconstitutionality is quite amusing. It reduces the supreme court to a box. It appears that in your view Obama could abolish congress and it wouldn't be unconstitutional until the supreme court made a ruling on it. You are the one trying in vain to land your feeble punches with your black belt in BS.
Complete non-sequitur, joe.
You are so eager to try to land your lame punches that you often type utter nonsense.
Try again.
Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou do know that Cass Sunstein was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, right?
[b]Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who h ...[text shortened]... cifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.[/b][/b]
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by joe beyserI'll take that as a 'no' then on the "Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?" front. Thanks.
Your schrodinger's cat view of unconstitutionality is quite amusing. It reduces the supreme court to a box. It appears that in your view Obama could abolish congress and it wouldn't be unconstitutional until the supreme court made a ruling on it. You are the one trying in vain to land your feeble punches with your black belt in BS.
Thank you for the comparison of czars (a.k.a. technocrats) to Obama "abolishing congress". Most revealing.
11 Sep 09
1 edit
If the president was to issue an order abolishing Congress, the Supreme Court would undoubtedly be hearing the case within 10 minutes, and an order declaring it unconstitutional would be issued within another 5 minutes. And it would take that long only if five of the Justices were having trouble getting their robes on.
With regards to these czars, it's one of those gray areas where some people believe they're constitutional and others do not. Nothing is going to be settled until the Court makes an official ruling (or if Congress passes a law requiring all czars to be subject to Senate confirmation). If no law is passed on this, I hope that a case is filed soon with the Court so that this question can be resolved one way or the other.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFOf course you know I was just using that to illustrate the point and it had nothing to do with czars. Your welcome feisty.
I'll take that as a 'no' then on the "Has the case in which it's argued that czars are unconstitutional reached the U.S. Supreme Court?" front. Thanks.
Thank you for the comparison of czars (a.k.a. technocrats) to Obama "abolishing congress". Most revealing.
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFYour not doing another shrodinger cat thing again are you? Both states exist at the same time until you look in the box. Is that what you think I am thinking? Seriously though, it was the point of the way it apears you view constitutionality. Something can be unconstitutional even though it has not gone to the supreme court for ruling. Just like a shoplifter has broken the law even if he hasn't gone to court yet. He is supposed to be presumed inocent untill proven guilty but that does not change the fact he broke the law.
How can it "illustrate" the point and have "nothing to do with" it, at the same time?