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.
Apparently you missed my objection which has little to do with appointments, and everything to do with appointees exercising power affecting values, standards and general public policy which just happens to be exclusively lodged in the Congress of the united States. Congress may not delegate such essential elements of its lawmaking power as its power to declare principles and standards, or general public policy.”(See Am Jur Constitutional Law, Legislative Power, Rule Barring Delegation)
I just read an article in the Washington Post that addresses this. It was written by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - they served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
However much the czars may drive the policymaking process at the White House, they cannot -- despite their grandiose (and frankly ridiculous) appellation -- determine what that policy will be. The Constitution's "appointments clause" requires that very senior federal officials be appointed with the Senate's consent, though lesser appointments can be made by the president, agency heads or the courts, as Congress provides. Well-established Supreme Court precedent holds that an "officer" subject to these requirements is one who exercises "significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States."
This is the critical difference between the White House czars and federal officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. In the absence of legislation (such as that creating the Office of Drug Control Policy, whose director is the "drug czar"), the only power exercised by White House czars comes from their proximity to the president and the access this provides. Yes, as many will note, that truly is power. But it is not significant authority under U.S. law -- which only the Constitution or Congress can confer.
I just read an article in the Washington Post that addresses this. It was written by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - they served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Good article, but it does not address the issues I have raised.
Let me give the latest example of an appointee, not elected by the people, adopting a new public policy which directly affects people’s day to day living.
Recently, Inez Tenenbaum, who President Obama appointed as the new chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, (CPSC), has decided to make it a punishable crime for a person having a garage sale to sell a product no longer needed which may contain lead that exceeds limits set by the federal government, or, sells an article which has been placed on a recall list. Under Tenenbaum’s new public policy dubbed the “Resale Round-up" , violators caught selling prohibited items face a fine of up to $100,000 per sale and $15 million for a series of infractions.
Now, there are a number of problems with this new public policy adopted by Tenenbaum.
1.
The original legislation dealing with the subject matter was intended to apply to new products only. So, where does Tenenbaum, Obama’s Czar, get the authority to set new public policy and apply it to Mrs. Joe Sixpack selling a baby crib no longer needed?
It is a violation of our constitutional system for the Congress of the united States to delegate its powers to “enact, suspend, or repeal laws. Nor may it delegate such essential elements of its lawmaking power as its power to declare principles and standards, or general public policy.” (See Am Jur Constitutional Law, Legislative Power, Rule Barring Delegation)
I don’t recall the people’s elected members of Congress adopting this new public policy, and thus, Tenenbaum has taken it upon herself to act as the people’s Legislature, which is a gross violation of our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government in which the people’s elected representatives, and only the people’s elected legislature, may adopt new public policy.
2.
The fact is, Congress has not been granted power to regulate the manufacture, sale and consumption of consumer products within the united States. And so, the CPSC is without authority to impose any fines or penalties as Congress is itself without such power and may not delegate a power which is not within its constitutionally authorized and enumerated powers.
Keep in mind our federalist system and its separations of powers is summed up as follows in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
And, the above separation of powers is unequivocally restated in our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Bottom line is, we have a federal government acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and ignoring the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted by We the People!
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Hey ... why are your knickers still in a twist over someone who quit .. 1, 2 weeks ago? Hello!!!!
My knickers? Ooh please.. The fact that they were there to begin with obviously doesnt bother you, but I for one have an issue with self admitted communists being anywhere close to the president. I also note how you've ignored some of the other radical "czars", examples of which I've listed above..
The fact that you dont have issues with this says more about you than anything you could say yourself. Hey, take one for the team.. Obama will thank you later for it..
No, the thread is clearly about "Czarist threat to our system of government", to which I can't help but laugh hysterically about considering the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon Czars.
You pointed out how they are the same then still suggest and pluralize "Czar's" and communists, as though you are trying to imply that Obama's Czar's are communist, hence the philosophical difference that anyone not in fantasy land can decipher. How many of Obama's Czar's are communist again, other than the one that isn't even there any longer?
You are speaking to the choir about the whole Obama change thing, in fact I'm more than happy to point out a thread I started, along with several which I posted that are well over a year old in which I said Obama was Bush light. More of the same.
I just enjoy your use of implicit statements while you bob and weave is all.
So you admit that Obama is more of the same, while criticizing the fact that I pointed out this fact. Odd behavior, especially for a moderator..
Jeff Jones for one, who cosponsored the stimulus and the healthcare bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Who? And anyone capable of having sponsored the stimulus and health care bills would be employed in the Legislative Branch. All of those labelled by the media as being among Obama's "czars" are employed in the Executive Branch.
Your right, the word isnt "cosponsored" is incorrect, wrote is more accurate. I bet we just feel so much better now knowing that he ONLY wrote them.
Can we expect the same wonderful results from the health care bill that we received from the stimulus plan? I can only hope so.. NOTHING..
Translation: Many right-wingers can be counted on not to have learned even the most basic facts of what they are talking about.
Translation, I cant dispute the fact that Obama is more of the same, so I'm going to attack "right wingers".. woo hoo.. Never stray from the playbook...
Would that still include Jeff Jones? What is he "czar" of again?
I like how you guys want to continue to bring up Jeff Jones.. I'd think that would be one of the "czars" you guys would want people to forget because it points out that it took a "right wing" political commentator to do basic research that the Obama administration should have done..
Keep bringing him up, its almost humorous you want to keep reminding people about how the president cant even do a basic background check which would avoid this administration some embarassment..
Last edited by pghquest; 09-19-2009 at 06:35 PM..
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.
New policy set by Inez Tenenbaum, Obama's Czar
