The questionable legality of any "orders" from any Presidentially appointed "czar"

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Liability, Oct 23, 2009.

  1. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    As a premise, let's just all agree that an Executive appointment of any officer is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

    Let's also say that these "czars" are something other than such "officers" since they are appointed by the President WITHOUT the advice and consent of the Senate. For example, the "pay czar" (whatever the fuck that "title" might actually mean), Kenneth Feinberg, recently made news by issuing some alleged "order" limiting executive pay for TARP-receiving companies. He was never subjected to Senate "scrutiny" of any kind.

    That kind of raises the question. What actual legal authority do any of these guys have if they are not actual "officers"?

    I do not know the answer. I am looking at it. I have come upon THIS, however, as it bears on the question of the so-called "pay czar's" authority to promulgate any rule or alleged "order" affecting remuneration for any TARP receiving companies: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/ec ifr fr web 6.9.09tg164.pdf
    (Congress passed a miasma of laws that get promulgated by the Executive via rules and regulations -- all normal operation of government type stuff even if extraordinary in its scope in this case).

    I BELIEVE it is possible that the "czar" is actually the so-called "special master" who is answerable to the Treasury Secretary and thus answerable to the President. This would mean that there ARE some actual checks and balances involved in this mess even if the White House pretends otherwise.

    Does anybody have ANY sound analysis if why anybody should give any legal credence to anything "ordered" by any such "czar"?

    Update:

    It looks like the "pay czar" is INDEED the so-called "Special Master:" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...czars-rulings-compensation-bailed-executives/

    So, at least I got that part right so far.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2009
  2. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    In the case of the "pay czar", he writes recommendations which are then implemented (or not) by Treasury. As for the other "czars", it's a case-by-case basis. Some of the positions you guys are calling "czars" are subject to Senate confirm. Other are purely advisory roles inside the EOP.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    And yet, when the "pay czar" issued what was called "orders" regarding limitations on remuneration for the top 25 TARP receiving companies, the President advised the world that he had no idea that the order was coming down. The White House pointed its finger at the pay czar as if to say "that's up to him, not me." But the czar is NOT actually an independent entity, he IS answerable to the President and so the White House denial was either proof of how completely out-of-touch this President is, or of how willing it is to engage in deception.

    Some of the postions "us guys are calling czars"? Sorry. I don't really use that term. The liberal PRESS has consistently referred to them as "czars," however. And in each case where any such "czar" is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, then my question still stands. What actual legal authority do ANY of them have to allegedly issue "orders?"

    In the case of our so-called "pay czar" I believe his authority IS absolutely limited by statute, by regulation and by direct and lawful higher authority. Whether or not the authority delegated to the Exsecutive under those Economic Relief Acts are themselves lawful (in the sense of being Constitutional) is of course another story entirely.
     
  4. CryGlennCry
    Offline

    CryGlennCry Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    240
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    West coast
    Ratings:
    +33
    Exactly...
    These advisers recommendations are hardly "orders".
    Why do you righties continue to beat this silly thing?

    [​IMG]

    -Also, if you DO have a constitutional issue with the number of czars, and that's your prerogative and right as an American, it's disingenuous because you didn't care a year ago.
     
  5. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    If the Special Master for TARP Company executive pay (the pay czar) does it, pursuant to rules and regs promulgated under the lawful authority of delegated power from Congressional Acts, then it is hardly just a "recommendation." What the devil are you talking about?

    And the prior administration didn't have anywhere NEAR the number of these freaking "czars." Again, you are being silly.

    Do you have any clue what you are pretending to talk about?
     
  6. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    This may come as a shock to you, but I imagine the President doesn't still around reviewing the day to day of any executive branch agency. That's the whole purpose of the cabinet.



    Last time I checked, the czar craziness is a Beck thing. Wasn't aware he's considered a liberal now. As for legal authority, they don't have any. Which is why they aren't issuing binding rulings.

    I can't really comment on this without reading the detailed language of the statute in question.
     
  7. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    If he issues rulings inside the purview of legislation, that's legal.
     
  8. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Maybe it is. Then again, maybe not. If he issues rulings pursuant to the ALLEGED legal authority given to some Executive agency via LEGISLATION which is itself UnConstitutional, then no. Such rulings would be devoid of legality.
     
  9. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,328
    Thanks Received:
    12,693
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,769
    I posted this elsewhere and you might want to read it. This is all mandated by Congress.

    Quote:
    The announcement is the third effort by Washington to respond to public outrage over outsize pay packages. On Feb. 4, the Obama administration announced a proposal to set a $500,000 cap on cash compensation for the most senior executives at troubled companies getting “exceptional assistance,” and restrictions on cashing in stock incentives.
    That plan did little to quell public sentiment as details of bonuses were disclosed at major companies receiving federal assistance. Two weeks after the Obama plan was announced, Congress approved a $787 billion economic stimulus bill that included tougher restrictions.
    That provision, inserted by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, over the objections of the Obama administration, instructed Treasury to come up with rules for the five top officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at the largest of the troubled companies.
    The legislation also barred top executives from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay. Moreover, any bonus would have to be in the form of long-term incentives, like restricted stock, which could not be cashed out until the company repaid the government.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/bu.../11pay.html?hp
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    No Ravi. We already have the fact that Congress passed laws which provided for the delegation of rulemaking authority to the Treasury Department via a "Special Master." The Special Master is the pay Czar. That's not the question at this point. The questions are:

    With regard to the "other" so-called "czars," what is the basis (if any) of THEIR alleged legal authority?

    Do they actually HAVE any legal authority?

    And with regard to the so-called "pay czar" was the delegation of such alleged authority a Constitutional Act?
     

Share This Page