Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2009, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,949 posts, read 47,272,488 times
Reputation: 14761

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude View Post
I think that "all" political appointees should be vetted or screened by Congress, Democrat and Republican.

George Washington made 120 appointments, while George Bush nominated over 2 000 "czars". I say "czars" because that seems to be the hip thing to say these days. The real term is "adviser".

The truth is that there are two kinds of nominations:

1. Those which require senate approval
2. Those which do not require approval

Can you imagine the senate trying to process every appointment? They would have no time for anything else. In the case of Van Jones for example, in order to nail his '*******' comments, someone would have been required to listen to every speech he has ever made.

Bush Sr tried to appoint Carson to his Secretary of agriculture, but the Senate rejected the appointment due to a controversy. The Sec of Agriculture is a position which requires senate approval. So, Bush Jr created a new position for him which did not require approval, and he became Bush's agriculture "czar". Should they change the process? Yes, probably, but it won't be easy, and not without risk. Read on.

There are problems with the senate approval process. When Madison was president there was a senator who wanted his brother to be Sec of State. Madison had his own, more qualified candidate for the position, but the senator scuttled his approval, and the senators brother became Sec Of State. He was totally unqualified, and the next president Quincy said that the war of 1812 would never have taken place if Madison's own choice had been the Sec Of State.

When Bush was trying to get four people nominated to his cabinet in 2001 he realized the nominations were being stalled by Jesse Helms (R) of North Carolina. Why? Because the senator had a slew of demands which had to be met before he would approve anyone: He wanted a recent free trade bill with Africa and the Caribbean rewritten to better protect the North Carolina textile industry, and he also wanted his own candidate installed as textile trade negotiator. He then placed holds on the nominees, effectively crippling the new administration's treasury department (source: WSJ).

Is this ethical, or even legal? Any senator can place a hold on a nomination for any reason until the executive branch gives the senator what he or she wants.

So, be careful what you ask for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2009, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,949 posts, read 47,272,488 times
Reputation: 14761
Quote:
Originally Posted by allydriver View Post
Uuuuh so you don't think the czars should be vetted?
It depends on the job decription. Van Jones was a "czar" only in the eyes of right wing MSM. He was a low level advisor with limited authority and no budget, and therefore no one paid much attention to his appointment. there is really no such thing as "czar" since it is a nickname for "advisor" and "director". Some of them are vetted, like the homeland security director "czar", while others are not. Bush made over 2000 appointment, and only a small percentage of them were vetted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2009, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Reading, PA
4,011 posts, read 4,411,896 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I think that background checks should be a must. These people will be privy to a great deal of sensitive data and information. If they can't pass the check how can they be trusted with classified materials?
The FBI conducts background checks on anyone who has access to classified information. Not everyone who works in DC or the White House has access to classified information. In fact, few do, relatively speaking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:54 AM
 
46,816 posts, read 25,738,739 times
Reputation: 29296
Quote:
Originally Posted by allydriver View Post
I can't think of a worse idea for our country other than to pluck advisors right out of prison.
Because obviously, those are the only two options available. He just wants to root through any appointee's past to find any excuse to make political hay of it.

Fascinating how the Republicans are all of a sudden not-so hot-so on the "strong Executive Branch" anymore. How times have changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2009, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Great Falls, Montana
4,002 posts, read 3,892,767 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagran View Post
The Constitution doesn't agree with you. The Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is not required to get the approval of the Legislative Branch on all it's employees any more than the Legislative Branch needs the approval of the Executive Branch on it's hires.

Funny, during the Bush administration, the right seemed to believe that the Executive Branch was the most powerful and oversaw the Legislative Branch. Now it seems like they think the Legislative Branch should oversee the Executive Branch. What a difference an election makes.
Really though, it could make sense to do this, in that every regular US citizen is screened by the FBI before being allowed to attend most town hall styled events across the country.

If you so much as had a parking ticket, all bets are off for getting a ticket or a pass to get in to see the President at the event.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 06:15 PM
 
10,793 posts, read 13,500,960 times
Reputation: 6189
Democratic Senator Takes White House to Task Over 'Czars'

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Congress needs to know whether some of the czars make policy but have no obligation to submit to congressional questioning.

Democratic Senator Takes White House to Task Over 'Czars' - Political News - FOXNews.com

WASHINGTON — A liberal Democratic senator questioned the roles of Obama administration policy "czars" Tuesday, but the White House denied it is using these officials to evade congressional scrutiny.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Congress needs to know whether some of the czars make policy but have no obligation to submit to congressional questioning.
While the Obama administration is hardly the first to name high-level advisers to handle issues like health care and climate change, Feingold said, "It's not good enough to simply say, 'Well, George Bush did it too.'"............................
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 06:20 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,281 posts, read 54,065,692 times
Reputation: 40571
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude View Post
I think that "all" political appointees should be vetted or screened by Congress, Democrat and Republican.


I think Congress should be screened first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 06:28 PM
 
8,624 posts, read 9,062,628 times
Reputation: 2863
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude View Post
I think that "all" political appointees should be vetted or screened by Congress, Democrat and Republican.
I think anyone connected to the white house should be vetted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 06:38 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,388,661 times
Reputation: 4013
Another day, another stunt. When the Democrats wanted to know so much as who was at Cheney's secret energy summit, the Republicans howled over what a trashing of the Constitution and the powers of the Executive that would be. Later on, of course, Cheney himself would argue that the Vice President was not part of the Executive branch, but of the Legislative branch. There's no sense or standards to be found anywhere over there...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Chicago Suburbs
3,199 posts, read 4,303,195 times
Reputation: 1176
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Another day, another stunt. When the Democrats wanted to know so much as who was at Cheney's secret energy summit, the Republicans howled over what a trashing of the Constitution and the powers of the Executive that would be. Later on, of course, Cheney himself would argue that the Vice President was not part of the Executive branch, but of the Legislative branch. There's no sense or standards to be found anywhere over there...
So you don't want Czars vetted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top