Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, there are no other words. The ones provided are all that are required.
I don't know what you are talking about here. I used only the words on Article 2 Section 2.
Second, Let, me repeat. See the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
I do not see any provision which grants a new power to the President to create positions without Congressional legislation. Could you please post it here.
Been down this path before.
But as an aside, if your definition of "czar" is based on the positions not being created with legislative intent, then you have to cut back the list, don't you, for the positions that were created legislatively.
And also, the positions that were confirmed because they are somewhat ambassadorial in nature and are contained within the State Department.
And also, the positions that haven't been newly created, and don't report directly to the President, and haven't any authority.
Or are you contending that the 4 million employees that work for the Executive Branch should be screened by Congress everytime the administration changes. That should take up some Congressional time and resources.
LOL. We have been down this path before. I am just standing up for the protection of The People from unelected "officials" that the Constitution provided to Congress. I am only contending that it is the obligation and duty of, as is explained in the SHALL part, Congress to approve and give powers to new positions. I do not believe that Congress has to approve of particular appointees as that power is used at their discresion only as is explained in the MAY part.
LOL. We have been down this path before. I am just standing up for the protection of The People from unelected "officials" that the Constitution provided to Congress. I am only contending that it is the obligation and duty of, as is explained in the SHALL part, Congress to approve and give powers to new positions. I do not believe that Congress has to approve of particular appointees as that power is used at their discresion only as is explained in the MAY part.
We really don't need to re-hash our arguments, LOL.
I do think, though, that aside from your interpretation of the Constitution, that it's important that somebody, sometime, actually tell us what criteria they used when they decided to call someone a "czar". Unless there is a specific criteria that has to be met, then the term itself is meaningless, isn't it?
We really don't need to re-hash our arguments, LOL.
I do think, though, that aside from your interpretation of the Constitution, that it's important that somebody, sometime, actually tell us what criteria they used when they decided to call someone a "czar". Unless there is a specific criteria that has to be met, then the term itself is meaningless, isn't it?
Good point. Maybe they had no better label for someone appointed to a position that didn't exist in law. I agree though that the definition of czar doesn't really make sense though. Maybe "gangster" would be more appropriate.
Article II, Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
There is no "in other words" constitutional requirement that every position within the Federal government be enacted by an act of Congress and as the Constitution points out, the Congress can and does defer such appointments of "inferior" officers to the President or the Courts alone!
The only presidential appointees who have been categorized as "czars" who are not required by law, to be confirmed by the Senate, are presidential appointees within the legislatively mandated Executive Office of the President of the United States under which the President is allowed by law to appoint as he deems fit any number of advisors and many of whom based upon their classification under the Civil Service Reform Act are exempt from senate confirmation.
We really don't need to re-hash our arguments, LOL.
I do think, though, that aside from your interpretation of the Constitution, that it's important that somebody, sometime, actually tell us what criteria they used when they decided to call someone a "czar". Unless there is a specific criteria that has to be met, then the term itself is meaningless, isn't it?
Good point. Maybe they had no better label for someone appointed to a position that didn't exist in law. I agree though that the definition of czar doesn't really make sense though. Maybe "gangster" would be more appropriate.
"Gangster" or "czar", whatever term you use, there still should be some basic criteria to give the word meaning.
Is a "czar" appointed by the President only, or can they be appointed by other officials in the Executive Branch?
Does a "czar" have to have direct access to the President?
Does a "czar" have to actually have authority or power?
If a "czar" is subject to Congressional review and confirmation, can he still be called a "czar"?
DC, the above was not at you. I think that all of these "czars" fit into:
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for
If that is your sole criteria, then the number is much, much higher than 36 or 42 or 51, isn't it? How many "czars" are you counting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
