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.
In Andrew Johnsons day the Tenure of Office act was passed so he could not dismiss Lincoln's cabinet, that he disagreed with, without the consent of congress. It was a trap but I think it is a good idea.
If a cabinet member has to go through the Senate to be appointed to be fired shouldn't one have to be fired by both the president and the Senate?
It would, in my opinion, reduce stonewalling of investigations into administrations misdeed if the DOJ was not at the whim of the president like the DOJ stonewalled the IRS and Fast and Furious investigations.
Also Bush's entire Cabinet backing his war gave him apparent legitimacy in his lies with no evidence of dissent, but that was due to disagreement meaning you would be replaced.
Giving powerful administration officials more independence would be good for America.
Last edited by btownboss4; 06-24-2015 at 05:17 PM..
WOW... I can't believe you said that.
I can't even believe I can pretend to know what was said.
Can I be for it, before I'm against it, or do I have to be against it, before I can be for it ?
I'm just glad you said it and it wasn't me.
WOW... I can't believe you said that.
I can't even believe I can pretend to know what was said.
Can I be for it, before I'm against it, or do I have to be against it, before I can be for it ?
I'm just glad you said it and it wasn't me.
I have to agree, this is the best explanation I have seen on this topic in a long time!
Also Bush's entire Cabinet backing his war gave him apparent legitimacy in his lies with no evidence of dissent, but that was due to disagreement meaning you would be replaced.
You mean Obama's war, which his cabinet is backing? Obama and the Dems are guilty of torture and human rights abuses. See the Obama drone war, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan.
You mean Obama's war, which his cabinet is backing? Obama and the Dems are guilty of torture and human rights abuses. See the Obama drone war, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan.
No Obama was not even in the federal government in 2003, Bush's war.
In Andrew Johnsons day the Tenure of Office act was passed so he could not dismiss Lincoln's cabinet, that he disagreed with, without the consent of congress. It was a trap but I think it is a good idea.
If a cabinet member has to go through the Senate to be appointed to be fired shouldn't one have to be fired by both the president and the Senate?
It would, in my opinion, reduce stonewalling of investigations into administrations misdeed if the DOJ was not at the whim of the president like the DOJ stonewalled the IRS and Fast and Furious investigations.
Also Bush's entire Cabinet backing his war gave him apparent legitimacy in his lies with no evidence of dissent, but that was due to disagreement meaning you would be replaced.
Giving powerful administration officials more independence would be good for America.
Such a requirement woud give the do nothing senate one more reason to do more of nothing.Cant work on immigration reform because we need to hold hearings on whether or not Holder should leave office.
Oh wait! Holder resigned!
Oh wait, they ALL resign!
No need for a tenure of office provision. Quod erat demonstratum est!
No Obama was not even in the federal government in 2003, Bush's war.
You guys are too much, 61/2 years into this disaster called the Obama Administration and you are still blaming Bush. Newsflash, Bush isn't the president, it is Barack Hussein Obama.
You guys are too much, 61/2 years into this disaster called the Obama Administration and you are still blaming Bush. Newsflash, Bush isn't the president, it is Barack Hussein Obama.
I am not saying Obama has no responsibility for what is the mess in the middle east, but, with the cabinet structured the way it is, dissent in the Bush administration leading up to the invasion of Iraq would lead to that cabinet official being terminated because they are partisan pawns of what ever administration that is in power.
The DOJ is worrying because they have powers to stonewall investigations. Nixon, in one night went through 3 AG's/acting AG's who refused to fire the special investigator investigating him, which held up the Watergate investigation for months.
AG's, SoS's, are civilian officals who can not say no to the president without getting fired, and that is way more power than any other leader of a democratic society has.
I am not saying Obama has no responsibility for what is the mess in the middle east, but, with the cabinet structured the way it is, dissent in the Bush administration leading up to the invasion of Iraq would lead to that cabinet official being terminated because they are partisan pawns of what ever administration that is in power.
That may be so but you missing the bigger picture. Every administration, no matter what party they represent, is a pawn of the power structure that has controlled the actions of every administration since 1933. Democracy exists to inhibit change.
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.
