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

[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:" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...czars-rulings-compensation-bailed-executives/

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

 

[Polk]

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

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.

 

[CryGlennCry]

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.

Exactly...
These advisers recommendations are hardly "orders".
Why do you righties continue to beat this silly thing?

-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.

 

[Liability]

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.

Exactly...
These advisers recommendations are hardly "orders".
Why do you righties continue to beat this silly thing?

-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.

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?

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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

 

[Polk]

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.

Exactly...
These advisers recommendations are hardly "orders".
Why do you righties continue to beat this silly thing?

-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.

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?

If he issues rulings inside the purview of legislation, that's legal.

 

[Liability]

Exactly...
These advisers recommendations are hardly "orders".
Why do you righties continue to beat this silly thing?

-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.

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?

If he issues rulings inside the purview of legislation, that's legal.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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

 

[Liability]

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

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?

 

[CryGlennCry]

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?

President's name ↓ In office ↓ Number of"czar" jobs ↓ Number of appointees ↓
Franklin Roosevelt 1933–1945 12 19
Harry Truman 1945–1953 6 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953–1961 1 1
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 ? ?
Lyndon Johnson 1963–1969 3 3
Richard Nixon 1969–1974 3 5
Gerald Ford 1974–1977 1 1
Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 2 3
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 2 3
Bill Clinton 1993–2001 7 10
George W. Bush 2001–2009 31 46
Barack Obama 2009– 32 35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

 

[JakeStarkey]

(Sigh) Understand, please, that Dick Cheney was the most powerful "czar" we have ever had in the U.S. government. His sole legal duty was to succeed George if he went toes up, yet he wielded truly monumental power.

 

[Ravi]

How would it be unconstitutional?

Next you'll be telling us that Obama has to clean his own toilet lest he violate the constitution.

 

[WillowTree]

How would it be unconstitutional?

Next you'll be telling us that Obama has to clean his own toilet lest he violate the constitution.

so is the CEO of Fannie Mae going to get a 90% paycut?



put yer money on the table honey!

 

[Ravi]

How would it be unconstitutional?

Next you'll be telling us that Obama has to clean his own toilet lest he violate the constitution.

so is the CEO of Fannie Mae going to get a 90% paycut?



put yer money on the table honey!

You tell me...I'm tired of being your research monkey. So far you've been wrong about everything.

 

[Liability]

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?

President's name ↓ In office ↓ Number of"czar" jobs ↓ Number of appointees ↓
Franklin Roosevelt 1933–1945 12 19
Harry Truman 1945–1953 6 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953–1961 1 1
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 ? ?
Lyndon Johnson 1963–1969 3 3
Richard Nixon 1969–1974 3 5
Gerald Ford 1974–1977 1 1
Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 2 3
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 2 3
Bill Clinton 1993–2001 7 10
George W. Bush 2001–2009 31 46
Barack Obama 2009– 32 35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

While the numbers you post are clearly unauthoritative, even if we were to accept them at face value, the prior Administration numbers came after two full terms, not less than one year of the first term.

You were "saying?"

 

[Liability]

How would it be unconstitutional?

Next you'll be telling us that Obama has to clean his own toilet lest he violate the constitution.

How would it be UnConstitutional?

Wow.

What conceivable basis in the Constitution gives the Fed'l government authority to do any of this shit?

The very purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the Federal government. Thus, if the gubmint cannot point fairly and squarely to a valid grant of authority to do what they're doing, they have stepped over the foul line.

And no. Next I will not be making any such retarded. I leave the making of such stupid statements to you libbies.

 

[Oddball]

She has been shown the facts and ignores them.

Ravi likes to play naïve on purpose.

Get used to it.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'
In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.NYT
The question has been asked and answered thoroughly, Is clearly legal !Keep on hating the President, you anti-American chicken hawk!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.