Since my first post was a bit controversial and I may have rubbed some people the wrong way I hope this is less irritating.
The resignation (probable force out) of Green Jobs Czar Van Jones got me thinking today and I pulled out my copy of the U.S. Constitution (if you don’t have one handy I recommend Cornell Laws Online version: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html ). Under Article II, Section 2, Presidential Power is outlined. In it, the Constitution clearly states that (note this is in the second paragraph of Section 2)
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.
Now a strict reading of this, at least my reading, would illustrate that the appointment of Van Jones or any other Czar without the “advice and consent” of the Senate is unconstitutional. For clarification though, does anyone know if Congress has granted power to the presidency to make such appointments without approval? If not, we could have an interesting constitutional case here.
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
My reading is that the "czars" are Constitutional so long
Achance (Diary) Monday, September 7th at 8:55PM EST (link)as they merely advise the President and the statutory and Constitutional Cabinet Officers. Now we all know that “advice” from one of Comrade Obama’s butt boys might well be an order for all intents and purposes, but until one of the czars has signatory authority, they’re just staff.
Some of you who’ve read my stuff for a long time know that I’ve long been an advocate of doing this so that you can get good advice and not have to subject the person giving it to the media and a legislative body.
In Vino Veritas
Then How Did Ratner Structure Teh GM? Giveaway To the Union
rcov092 (Diary) Monday, September 7th at 9:22PM EST (link)if he was only advising?
“Not One Red Dime for the NRSC or NRCC till they stop trying to elect liberals”
Join the RedState Strike Force
Good point...
burgessputney (Diary) Monday, September 7th at 9:37PM EST (link)How did Ratner derive his authority? Additionally, I think placing these people as special advisors is a dangerous precedent. If the President wants to seek an outside opinion or receive advice from an individual, just call them in to the Oval Office. Kissinger had made numerous visits to President Bush, many academics have advised the White House in the past without the title of Czar or any other honor.
Learn something about how governments work!
Achance (Diary) Monday, September 7th at 11:42PM EST (link)Most of those Constitutionally advised and consented political appointees couldn’t pour pee out of a boot with the instructions on the heel. Everything they “do,” every decision they “make” is made by somebody else; staffers, advisors, attornies. The confirmed appointee has the signatory authority and if s/he doesn’t sign off on the decision, it doesn’t happen, but that doesn’t mean they make it.
This administration was simply being stupid and arrogant when they disclosed how much power they were giving their insiders, none of whom could have been confirmed, over the confirmed appointees – and even with the confirmed appointees the Politiburo’s bar was low, so that should give you a clue about what kind of scumbags are really calling the shot.
In Vino Veritas