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

[Oddball]

Ruling by decree is unconstitutional in any case, party affiliation nonwithstanding.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When we win it back were going to hire every Conservative as a Czar

 

[Liability]

Obama is clearly within his authority to appoint administrators. No one has been able to give any evidence that it is illegal. The far right is simply delusional.

Who the hell said that a President can't appoint administrators?

It is a given.

What is not a given is whether (in any given case) the appointed "administrator" has any actual legal authority, and that turns on how (or even whether) a proper grant of delegated authority has been given.

 

[Polk]

Obama is clearly within his authority to appoint administrators. No one has been able to give any evidence that it is illegal. The far right is simply delusional.

Who the hell said that a President can't appoint administrators?

It is a given.

What is not a given is whether (in any given case) the appointed "administrator" has any actual legal authority, and that turns on how (or even whether) a proper grant of delegated authority has been given.

This was already covered earlier in the thread. It depends on if the "czar" in question is someone who's a cabinet undersecretary (in which case, they are subject to Senate confirmation and have certain legal authority, as spelled out in applicable laws) or if they're an appointment in the Executive Office of the President (in which case they have no legal authority and their role is purely advisory).

 

[Liability]

Obama is clearly within his authority to appoint administrators. No one has been able to give any evidence that it is illegal. The far right is simply delusional.

Who the hell said that a President can't appoint administrators?

It is a given.

What is not a given is whether (in any given case) the appointed "administrator" has any actual legal authority, and that turns on how (or even whether) a proper grant of delegated authority has been given.

This was already covered earlier in the thread. It depends on if the "czar" in question is someone who's a cabinet undersecretary (in which case, they are subject to Senate confirmation and have certain legal authority, as spelled out in applicable laws) or if they're an appointment in the Executive Office of the President (in which case they have no legal authority and their role is purely advisory).

So, it wasn't "covered."

If there is a valid appointment after some delegation of lawful rule-making authority, then the czar has (probably) lawful authority.

Otherwise, probably not.

Which is what I have said several times now.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I think the pay Czar has one main function, Obama has hired him to make sure that no CEO gets paid more than Obama does. That just wouldn't be right. And next on the Obama conquest train will be Czar of the UN.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yesterday the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg’s decision. Politico reports:

In fact, sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg's, and his alone. A senior administration official tells POLITICO that Obama did not sign off on the pay master’s decision. Feinberg didn't even brief the White House on it, the official said, but he briefed Treasury officials instead.

But after yesterday’s announcement that the Federal Reserve released its own plan to control how banks compensate their employees, the New York Times reported:

The announcement was choreographed to coincide with the decision by the Obama administration this week to cut the pay of many high earners at the seven companies that received the most taxpayer help. Both decisions were announced amid growing public outrage over large pay packages at many of those companies.

So which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House?

The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his Pay Czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress. Heritage fellow Matthew Spalding explained the problem

Sure looks like an out of control executive branch seizing power piece by piece to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, your original premise is false. You know it, I know it, I suspect everyone else knows it. Let's move on.

 

[Polk]

Who the hell said that a President can't appoint administrators?

It is a given.

What is not a given is whether (in any given case) the appointed "administrator" has any actual legal authority, and that turns on how (or even whether) a proper grant of delegated authority has been given.

This was already covered earlier in the thread. It depends on if the "czar" in question is someone who's a cabinet undersecretary (in which case, they are subject to Senate confirmation and have certain legal authority, as spelled out in applicable laws) or if they're an appointment in the Executive Office of the President (in which case they have no legal authority and their role is purely advisory).

So, it wasn't "covered."

If there is a valid appointment after some delegation of lawful rule-making authority, then the czar has (probably) lawful authority.

Otherwise, probably not.

Which is what I have said several times now.

That fully addresses your point. You're acting if this arbitrary "czar" terminology has actual legal significance. It doesn't.

 

[Liability]

This was already covered earlier in the thread. It depends on if the "czar" in question is someone who's a cabinet undersecretary (in which case, they are subject to Senate confirmation and have certain legal authority, as spelled out in applicable laws) or if they're an appointment in the Executive Office of the President (in which case they have no legal authority and their role is purely advisory).

So, it wasn't "covered."

If there is a valid appointment after some delegation of lawful rule-making authority, then the czar has (probably) lawful authority.

Otherwise, probably not.

Which is what I have said several times now.

That fully addresses your point. You're acting if this arbitrary "czar" terminology has actual legal significance. It doesn't.

Wrong. I am not acting in any such way nor making any such claim. Quite the contrary is true, in fact.

What I am saying is that merely because the irresponsible liberal main stream Obama-supporting media persists in labeling some appointed "official" a "czar" does not mean that the appointee has any actual legal authority at all. In each case, since the damn "news" media refuses to report what -- if any -- actual legal authority the czar du kour has, the QUESTION we need to be asking (in lieu of them doing their actual job in reporting fairly and honestly) is:

What legal authority if any does the alleged 'czar" have? What is the basis for such alleged (or pretend) power/authority.

In the case of the so-called pay czar, the answer is that he is an appointed SUB-ordinate to the Treasury Secreatry pursuant to statute.

In the case of many of these other so-called "czars," we are largely on our own to find out.

 

[Liability]

Liability, your original premise is false. You know it, I know it, I suspect everyone else knows it. Let's move on.

nonsense.

My original premise is right on the mark truthful and accurate as YOU know but choose to deny for some dishonest reason all your own. You are merely lying.

Dismissed, kid.

 

[CryGlennCry]

nonsense.

My original premise is right on the mark truthful and accurate as YOU know but choose to deny for some dishonest reason all your own. You are merely lying.

Dismissed, kid.

Judging by your avatar, I think this will be an analogy you can understand.
Polk is represented by Bluto.
Liability will be represented by the guitar player.
And your argument is represented by the guitar.
Any questions??.....

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Judging by your avatar * * * *

Any questions??.....

Just one, retard.

Was your infant skull dribbled like a basketball at birth

or did you suffer your brain damage in utero?

 

[JD_2B]

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:" RAW DATA: Pay Czar's Rulings on Compensation of Bailed-Out Executives - Political News - FOXNews.com

So, at least I got that part right so far.

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

 

[dilloduck]

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:" RAW DATA: Pay Czar's Rulings on Compensation of Bailed-Out Executives - Political News - FOXNews.com

So, at least I got that part right so far.

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

Please fix that, quickly !

 

[JD_2B]

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

Please fix that, quickly !

You don't think we live in a plutocracy???

Officials are often appointed, and the president is, although elected in the end, nominated by the president who served before him. Hence, since he is picked by his predecessor, we do not get to actually elect a president, in the overall sense of things.

How is this NOT plutocratic?

 

[dilloduck]

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

Please fix that, quickly !

You don't think we live in a plutocracy???

Officials are often appointed, and the president is, although elected in the end, nominated by the president who served before him. Hence, since he is picked by his predecessor, we do not get to actually elect a president, in the overall sense of things.

How is this NOT plutocratic?

easy, woman. I wasn't being sarcastic this time.-- and I would like it fixed but doubt that it can be done.

 

[Liability]

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:" RAW DATA: Pay Czar's Rulings on Compensation of Bailed-Out Executives - Political News - FOXNews.com

So, at least I got that part right so far.

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

Plutoacracy my left nut.

That's just a bogus little cop out by the beneficiaries of the Founders and Framers who are, presently, too fucking limited in their diligence to actively participate and who thus allow their power to be delegated to others. They have zero right to complain.

 

[JD_2B]

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:" RAW DATA: Pay Czar's Rulings on Compensation of Bailed-Out Executives - Political News - FOXNews.com

So, at least I got that part right so far.

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

Plutoacracy my left nut.

That's just a bogus little cop out by the beneficiaries of the Founders and Framers who are, presently, too fucking limited in their diligence to actively participate and who thus allow their power to be delegated to others. They have zero right to complain.

NOOOOO it is not. The constitution, you will notice, SAYS in it's articles of Confederation that the president is to be NOMINATED.

Clearly this is a fuck up on the part of those who agreed to sign it. It is certainly NOT a cop-out though.

Yes it does need to be amended. Why else would there be Lawyers 2 be, like myself?? =)

 

[Liability]

It is all chalked up to our plutocracy, which is only CALLED a democratic republic.

I blame the founders for this error.. They did pretty well overall, but this was a major oversight.

Plutoacracy my left nut.

That's just a bogus little cop out by the beneficiaries of the Founders and Framers who are, presently, too fucking limited in their diligence to actively participate and who thus allow their power to be delegated to others. They have zero right to complain.

NOOOOO it is not. The constitution, you will notice, SAYS in it's articles of Confederation that the president is to be NOMINATED.

Clearly this is a fuck up on the part of those who agreed to sign it. It is certainly NOT a cop-out though.

Yes it does need to be amended. Why else would there be Lawyers 2 be, like myself?? =)

Maybe you can 'splain me how the fact that the President gets nominated means that our representative Republic is, instead, a plutocracy.

'Cause, I confess. I'm not getting the gist of your argument.

The problem with most lawyers to be is that they eventually become

lawyers.

It's like kittens. I like kittens. But damn them, they DO tend to turn out to be cats. Cats suck.