W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
Leonard
Friday, October 23, 2009 8:10 AM
By: Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President
Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress � a decision senators said
goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and
treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the
administration's actions.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig
told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the
czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate
confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the
White House would be allowed to come before Congress.
Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are
actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama..
"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, Carol
Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations
she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a
hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.
The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about
separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have
advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear
being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress,
though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able
to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president
advice.
At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created since
he took office. Of those, she says 10 � the White House says eight � are in
the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests
or requests for testimony.
Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the government
affairs committee, asked the White House to provide a witness for Thursday's
hearing but it did not send one.
In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that the
White House is not trying to circumvent Congress.
"We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could
create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional
oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current
administration," Mr. Craig wrote.
Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White
House "are solely advisory in nature" and have no independent authority.
Senators disagreed with that evaluation, pointing to Mrs. Browner and
healthcare czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is Mr. Obama's healthcare adviser.
"We do happen to have a Cabinet officer with Health and Human Services with
whom I have never had a conversation on healthcare, not because I have any
opposition to her but because it's my perception Nancy-Ann DeParle is
calling the shots," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican.
Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck � who
senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be
named" � began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama
administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for
months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has
criticized.
Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins
critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.
Legal experts testifying before the Senate panel said Congress needs to be
careful not to overreach in reacting. They said options open to lawmakers
include writing new laws to restrict advisers' authority or writing the
positions into law as needing Senate confirmation. A White House aide,
speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are trying to work to
accommodate "all reasonable congressional requests for information" and said
some White House advisers have given informal briefings to members of
Congress in lieu of testimony.
The aide also said some czars are outside the White House itself and they
can be called to testify. The aide said five of them have already done so.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, blasted Republicans for raising
the issue and said she took offense at their comparisons between Mr. Obama
and President Nixon.
She said Congress should instead be looking at the legality of presidential
signing statements to shape how laws are implemented � a tool whose use
expanded substantially under President George W. Bush.
Last month, Miss Collins offered an amendment to compel administration
officials to testify, but it was ruled not germane to the bill being
debated.
Democrats said it went too far because it would have covered all executive
branch employees, including the national security adviser and the chief of
staff, who have always been recognized as out of bounds.
Miss Collins said the issue shouldn't be so intractable and that Congress
and the White House should be able to agree on a list of people who should
be able to testify.
For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he's still looking for a good solution.
"We both share a desire to do something about this to help Congress uphold
our responsibility for oversight, but we understand the balance here as
reflected in the Constitution," he said.
Jeff Strickland
"Leonard" <leona...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:C707D9D8.72B9%leona...@primus.ca...
> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
>
And they said that Bush & Co. were shredding the Constitution. The shredding
has been stepped up several notches under Obama, and the "main stream media"
is strangly silent on the issue.
</toppost>
Andrew
news:C707D9D8.72B9%leona...@primus.ca...
> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
> Carol
> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
> negotiations
> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
--
Andrew
Peter Franks
> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
> Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using
the term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.
czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power;
an autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to
regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
"used to designate certain monarchs"
"designate ... supreme rulers"
"'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
"Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ...
with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar
Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the
terminology they 'informally' adopt... Funny thing is that the term
Czar may be more appropriate for these unelected officials than the
administration lets on.
Peter Franks
Nor does it have the /authority/.
Jeff Strickland
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hbv28k$7f1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You carry on and on about supreme rulers, right after ignoring def. 3.
There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to
the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not
there yet.
liberal
> Andrew wrote:
> > "Leonard" <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote in message
"Promote the General Welfare.."
Jeff Strickland
<La...@alot.com> wrote in message
news:1ea6e5d8jspbik8qs...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:58:52 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
>>issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to
>>the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not
>>there yet.
>
> acquisition.
>
> And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of
> "casear"
Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?
Wake up!
Info Junkie
Oh my...it appears there are still those that are trying to trot out
that old carnard(sigh)
-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and
are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take
the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers
in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public
treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of
children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the
regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing,
from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute
object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were
the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
-Alexander Hamilton:
"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases.
This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to
a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of
special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general
authority was intended..." http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers/fed_83.html
Info Junkie
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>
> <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
>
>
> The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders)
> and then arguing they are required to gauge legal
> rulings and precedent against.
Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US
Constitution that is the basis for all US law. Court rulings are
supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.
"All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an
act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not
conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the
government HAS ONLY ONE DUTY; to lay the article of the Constitution
which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide
whether the latter squares with the former." (emphasis mine). -
Justice Owen J. Roberts
The word "precedent" is neither stated nor implied by FF/framers/state
ratifers.
> What Madison "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO
> bearing on the constitution after it was
> ratified---other than to provide historical "reference"
> IF desired
IOW, those like you prefer to make it up as you go along, similar to
children losing a game wish to make up new rules as until they get the
results they want regardless of the intent of the game. ROTFLMHO
> They contain NO legal requirement to do so.
..and yet Article V of the US Constitution is the legal vehicle, by
design, to make changes IF the spirit and intent is desired by the
majority of its citizenry.
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "When Moses told the children of Israel that he
> received the two tables of the commandments from the
> hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him,
> because they had no other authority for it that his
> telling them so."
Now you delve into religion, not US law and its principles. Non
sequitur
> "The "commandments" carry no internal evidence of
> divinity within them; they carry some good moral
> precepts, such as any man qualified to be a law-giver,
> or a legislator, could produce himself, without having
> to recourse to supernatural intervention"
>
> Thomas Paine,--------- Founder
...and for ~three millenia said "commandments" have not changed and
the majority of its followers continue to aspire to the spirit and
intent of its precepts.to this day.
Oh wait! Let me re-phrase for all of YOUR intent and purposes
"What (Paine) "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO bearing on the
constitution after it was ratified---other than to provide historical
"reference" IF desired". ROTFLMHO
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Oct 24, 8:23 pm, L...@alot.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>>
>><bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
>>
>>ah, sigh
>>
>>The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders)
>>and then arguing they are required to gauge legal
>>rulings and precedent against.
>
>
> Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US
> Constitution that is the basis for all US law. Court rulings are
> supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.
Not according to originalist Antonin Scalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism>
Josh Rosenbluth
Bob LeChevalier
Of course it does. It can regulate interstate commerce, for example.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>> > Nor does it have the /authority/.
>>
>> "Promote the General Welfare.."-
>
>Oh my...it appears there are still those that are trying to trot out
>that old carnard(sigh)
>
>-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
>"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and
>are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
The supreme court is the adjudicator of constitutional issues.
But Congress certainly has the power to make claims about the general
welfare, about which the courts may adjudicate.
>they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
which is one reason why the first amendment explicitly says otherwise.
>they may appoint teachers
>in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public
>treasury;
>They could they may take into their own hands the education of
>children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
Probably. But they would have explicitly justify it as a general
welfare decision, and the courts would rule on that justification.
>they may assume the provision of the poor;
The courts seem to have had no problem with welfare.
>they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
the Interstate Highway system.
>in short, every thing,
>from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute
>object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress....
"could be", but only if it were properly justified and passed court
scrutiny.
>Were
>the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
>it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
>of the limited Government established by the people of America."
>http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
It did. The South lost the civil war
Bob LeChevalier
>On Oct 24, 8:23�pm, L...@alot.com wrote:
>> The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders)
>> and then arguing they are required to gauge legal
>> rulings and precedent against.
>
>Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US
>Constitution that is the basis for all US law.
That makes the false ASSumption that there was a single "spirit and
intent". We know from the history, that much of the constitution was
compromise based on multiple conflicting spirits and intents.
>Court rulings are supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.
Where does the Constitution or the Judiciary Act state that?
>"All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an
>act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not
>conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the
>government HAS ONLY ONE DUTY; to lay the article of the Constitution
>which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide
>whether the latter squares with the former." (emphasis mine). -
>Justice Owen J. Roberts
No mention of spirit or intent.
>The word "precedent" is neither stated nor implied by FF/framers/state
>ratifers.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the courts.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm
refers multiple times to
"the principles and usages of law"
and similar phraseology. "stare decisis" is one such principle of
law.
It seems reasonable to consider the Congress of 1789 among the FF.
>> What Madison "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO
>> bearing on the constitution after it was
>> ratified---other than to provide historical "reference"
>> IF desired
>
>IOW, those like you prefer to make it up as you go along,
from said Judiciary Act.
"but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment
according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear
unto them"
So, subject to the principles and usages of law, decisions are indeed
to be "made up as they go along". Note that it does not say "shall
appear unto the FF".
Bob LeChevalier
>Leonard wrote:
>> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
>> ...
>> Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
>> ...
>
>Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using
>the term 'Czar' to refer to these people?
It is primarily the media that uses the term "czar". Their actual job
titles do not include the term "czar".
>czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power;
>an autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to
>regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
>
>"used to designate certain monarchs"
>
>"designate ... supreme rulers"
>
>"'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
>
>"Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ...
>with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
You are ignoring definition 3, which is the only one applicable to
these people being INFORMALLY called "czars".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar
>
>Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the
>terminology they 'informally' adopt.
No. The media treats us like children, and incidentally prefers the
use of 4 letter words to long-winded job titles because they fit
better into headlines.
Info Junkie
How interesting. Once again Mr LeChevalier has (admitted hyprocrisy
and) graced this NG with his presence and decided his interpretations,
using the post-1936 "got the (FDR) message and suddenly shifted its
course" USSC rulings, are better than those of Mr Madison, the
acknowledged "father of the US Constitution". Interesting indeed.
> >Were
> >the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
> >it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
> >of the limited Government established by the people of America."
> >http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
>
> It did. The South lost the civil war
Apparently Mr LeChevalier, you've decided to supplant the meaning of
the words "...limited Government established by the people of America"
with *The South lost. Get over it!*, eh?
Jeff Strickland
<La...@alot.com> wrote in message
news:ne67e5tfg4q6aca85...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:04:21 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><La...@alot.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ea6e5d8jspbik8qs...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:58:52 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
>>>>issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose,
>>>>to
>>>>the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're
>>>>not
>>>>there yet.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, we stopped the GOP onslaught of power
>>> acquisition.
>>>
>>> And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of
>>> "casear"
>>
>>
>>Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?
>
> helping ALL Americans---instead of defining "americans"
> as the top 10%
Obama is a great president, IF you're a socialist. I'm not.
Peter Franks
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hbv28k$7f1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Leonard wrote:
>>> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
>>> ...
>>> Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
>>> ...
>> Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using the
>> term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.
>>
>> czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power; an
>> autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to
>> regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
>>
>> "used to designate certain monarchs"
>>
>> "designate ... supreme rulers"
>>
>> "'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
>>
>> "Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ... with
>> a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar
>>
>> Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the
>> terminology they 'informally' adopt... Funny thing is that the term Czar
>> may be more appropriate for these unelected officials than the
>> administration lets on.
>
>
> You carry on and on about supreme rulers, right after ignoring def. 3.
"Informal. An appointed official having *special powers to regulate or
supervise an activity*" (emphasis added) - that's my concern.
> There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
> issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to
> the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not
> there yet.
I don't want to 'get there' and then worry about how to solve /that/
problem. The terminology is disturbing, /now/.
Peter Franks
Congress does not have the authority to "Promote the General Welfare..".
Congress has the power to "provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States;".
What part of "emission standards" provides for the "common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"*?
*Note: the phrase can NOT be parsed, it must be left intact as that was
the intent of the delegated authority.
Bob LeChevalier
>> >Were
>> >the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
>> >it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
>> >of the limited Government established by the people of America."
>> >http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
>>
>> It did. �The South lost the civil war
>
>Apparently Mr LeChevalier, you've decided to supplant the meaning of
>the words "...limited Government established by the people of America"
>with *The South lost. Get over it!*, eh?
The people of America did NOT establish limited government. They
established almost unlimited state governments and a very weak and
limited central government. When that failed, they established the
Constitution with a somewhat stronger central government, and having
the principle of Federal supremacy. Then we fought the Civil War, and
the result was an even stronger Federal government, and the 14th
amendment, which "we the people" established through our elected
representatives to weaken the states even further.
Josh Rosenbluth
You aren't seriously arguing the "and" requires that all spending must
provide for defense and welfare at the same time?
The clause also says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
[...] to pay the Debts and provide for". Does this mean Congressional
statutes must simultaneously lay/collect, pay debts, and provide?
And the entire of Article 1, Section 8 is a serious of clauses that
enumerate Congressional Power, and reads: "The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes [...] To borrow Money [...] To regulate
Commerce [...] To exercise exclusive Legislation [...] *And* To make all
Laws which shall be necessary and proper." Does this mean Congressional
actions must simultaneously be an exercise of every power enumerated?
Of course not in each case. The "and" in each case separates a list of
independent powers.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>> liberal wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 10:17 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
>>>>> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
>>>>
>>>> Nor does it have the /authority/.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Promote the General Welfare.."
>>
>>
>> Congress does not have the authority to "Promote the General Welfare..".
>>
>> Congress has the power to "provide for the common Defence and general
>> Welfare of the United States;".
>>
>> What part of "emission standards" provides for the "common Defence and
>> general Welfare of the United States"*?
>>
>> *Note: the phrase can NOT be parsed, it must be left intact as that
>> was the intent of the delegated authority.
>
> You aren't seriously arguing the "and" requires that all spending must
> provide for defense and welfare at the same time?
I meant what I said, nothing more, nothing less.
Josh Rosenbluth
It trivially provides for the general welfare of the United States.
That's sufficient.
Josh Rosenbluth
*us*
Do you believe that sucking exhaust pipes has been good for you?
Strabo
> "Leonard" <leona...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> news:C707D9D8.72B9%leona...@primus.ca...
>> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
>>
>
> has been stepped up several notches under Obama, and the "main stream media"
> is strangly silent on the issue.
>
One might think there's a conspiracy afoot.
>
>
> </toppost>
>
>
>
>
>> Friday, October 23, 2009 8:10 AM
>>
>> By: Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
>>
>> The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of
>> President
>> Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress � a decision senators said
>> goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and
>> treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the
>> administration's actions.
>>
>> Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig
>> told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of
>> the
>> czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate
>> confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of
>> the
>> White House would be allowed to come before Congress.
>>
>> Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are
>> actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama..
>>
>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
>> Carol
>> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
>> negotiations
>> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
>> policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a
>> hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.
>>
>> The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about
>> separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to
>> have
>> advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to
>> fear
>> being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress,
>> though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be
>> able
>> to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the
>> president
>> advice.
>>
>> At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created
>> since
>> he took office. Of those, she says 10 � the White House says eight � are
>> in
>> the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act
>> requests
>> or requests for testimony.
>>
>> Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
>>
>> Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the government
>> affairs committee, asked the White House to provide a witness for
>> Thursday's
>> hearing but it did not send one.
>>
>> In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that
>> the
>> White House is not trying to circumvent Congress.
>>
>> "We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could
>> create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional
>> oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current
>> administration," Mr. Craig wrote.
>>
>> Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White
>> House "are solely advisory in nature" and have no independent authority.
>>
>> Senators disagreed with that evaluation, pointing to Mrs. Browner and
>> healthcare czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is Mr. Obama's healthcare adviser.
>>
>> "We do happen to have a Cabinet officer with Health and Human Services
>> with
>> whom I have never had a conversation on healthcare, not because I have any
>> opposition to her but because it's my perception Nancy-Ann DeParle is
>> calling the shots," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican.
>>
>> Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck � who
>> senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be
>> named" � began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama
>> administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for
>> months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has
>> criticized.
>>
>> Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins
>> critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.
>>
>> Legal experts testifying before the Senate panel said Congress needs to be
>> careful not to overreach in reacting. They said options open to lawmakers
>> include writing new laws to restrict advisers' authority or writing the
>> positions into law as needing Senate confirmation. A White House aide,
>> speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are trying to work to
>> accommodate "all reasonable congressional requests for information" and
>> said
>> some White House advisers have given informal briefings to members of
>> Congress in lieu of testimony.
>>
>> The aide also said some czars are outside the White House itself and they
>> can be called to testify. The aide said five of them have already done so.
>>
>> Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, blasted Republicans for raising
>> the issue and said she took offense at their comparisons between Mr. Obama
>> and President Nixon.
>>
>> She said Congress should instead be looking at the legality of
>> presidential
>> signing statements to shape how laws are implemented � a tool whose use
>> expanded substantially under President George W. Bush.
>>
>> Last month, Miss Collins offered an amendment to compel administration
>> officials to testify, but it was ruled not germane to the bill being
>> debated.
>>
>> Democrats said it went too far because it would have covered all executive
>> branch employees, including the national security adviser and the chief of
>> staff, who have always been recognized as out of bounds.
>>
>> Miss Collins said the issue shouldn't be so intractable and that Congress
>> and the White House should be able to agree on a list of people who should
>> be able to testify.
>>
>> For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he's still looking for a good solution.
>>
>> "We both share a desire to do something about this to help Congress uphold
>> our responsibility for oversight, but we understand the balance here as
>> reflected in the Constitution," he said.
>>
>>
>
>
Strabo
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:40:07 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of
>>>>> "casear"
>>>>
>>>> Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?
>>> Thank god the Democratic "onslaught" is geared to
>>> helping ALL Americans---instead of defining "americans"
>>> as the top 10%
>>
>> Obama is a great president, IF you're a socialist. I'm not.
>>
>
> of them
>
> Probably not a record, but close
>
> Now if you'd be good enough to explain why Any
> rational, thinking person could be fooled into
> believing anyone in serious positions of authority are
> "socialist(ic)---you could provide us with more comic
> relief.
>
A Socialist is as a Socialist does.
Bob LeChevalier
>A Socialist is as a Socialist does.
Ideological nonsense
The closes thing I am to any kind of "-ist" is pragmatist. As in: if
it works, screw the ideological implications. If it doesn't work,
then likewise screw the ideological implications.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"Leonard" <leona...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>news:C707D9D8.72B9%leona...@primus.ca...
>
>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
>> Carol
>> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
>> negotiations
>> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
>> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
>
>This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
>
>Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
So then you believe that the air should be polluted without limit?
Peter Franks
>> general Welfare of the United States"
>
> associated with "common defense"
>
> The general welfare would include anything that harms
> society.
No. The grant applies to the "Welfare of the United States", not society.
Peter Franks
No, but not because of some imaginary grant of power.
Peter Franks
Really? How?
Peter Franks
Not at all.
The States, if they have been granted the (state) constitutional
authority, can enact legislation.
This isn't a question of whether or not we should pollute (we
shouldn't), but a question of what has the authority to regulate
pollution (n�e, emission standards). The Feds don't, the states may.
IF a federal grant of authority is deemed necessary, invoke Article V.
That's what it is there for.
Josh Rosenbluth
The welfare of the nation directly depends on the welfare of the people,
and improved emission standards improve the health and well being of the
people.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
<La...@alot.com> wrote in message
news:ml9ae5dk39qcbm149...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:40:07 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of
>>>>> "casear"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?
>>>
>>> Thank god the Democratic "onslaught" is geared to
>>> helping ALL Americans---instead of defining "americans"
>>> as the top 10%
>>
>>
>>Obama is a great president, IF you're a socialist. I'm not.
>>
>
> of them
>
> Probably not a record, but close
>
> Now if you'd be good enough to explain why Any
> rational, thinking person could be fooled into
> believing anyone in serious positions of authority are
> "socialist(ic)---you could provide us with more comic
> relief.
It's all over the Internet, it has to be true.
You should study the family of Valerie Jarrett. Look up Van Jones (resigned
in disgrace of his socialist views). Consider the life and career of the
Diversity Czar, the guy at the FCC that thinks Hugo Chavez has policies
worth emmulating. Listen to the hate filled rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright.
Check out Bill Ayers. All of these people (ALL OF THEM) are socialists at
best, and maybe even outright communists.
Then there's Nancy Pelosi, certified whack job from the ultra-far-left city
of San Francisco. Barrack Hussein Obama and his darling bride have been
steeped like an overused tea bag in socialism their entire lives. Socialism
is NORMAL for these people. Except the part where they personally have to
give up their wealth for the greater good. They want you to stand in line to
forfiet your wealth, but they are not going to be standing in the line with
you, you can bet your last dime on that.
I'd be interested to know how any rational, thinking person could be fooled
into believing anyone in serious positions of authority are NOT
socialist(ic).
Peter Franks
There's no proof of that.
And just so that we are clear, we are discussing the welfare of the
United States, in the context of common defense.
> and improved emission standards improve the health and well being of the
> people.
No, it doesn't. And if it did, it comes at a tremendous /expense/ which
is NOT in the best interest of the general welfare of the United States.
Again, we aren't discussing the people, we are discussing the United States.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:27:45 -0500, "Andrew" <andy...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Leonard" <leona...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:C707D9D8.72B9%leona...@primus.ca...
>>>
>>>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
>>>> Carol
>>>> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
>>>> negotiations
>>>> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
>>>> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
>>> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
>>
>> So then you believe that the air should be polluted without limit?
>
>Not at all.
>
>The States, if they have been granted the (state) constitutional
>authority, can enact legislation.
Of course their legislation would be unenforceable. Either they
aren't an auto manufacturing state, in which case their regulations
would be irrelevant, or they are, in which case they won't be passing
any legislation.
Josh Rosenbluth
It's trivially self evident.
> And just so that we are clear, we are discussing the welfare of the
> United States, in the context of common defense.
As I detailed in the part you earlier snipped, provide for the "common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States" does not mean emission
standards must simultaneously provide for both defense and welfare. One
or the other will do.
>> and improved emission standards improve the health and well being of
>> the people.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. And if it did, it comes at a tremendous /expense/ which
> is NOT in the best interest of the general welfare of the United States.
Whether it is good policy is for our elected representatives to decide,
not Peter Franks.
> Again, we aren't discussing the people, we are discussing the United
> States.
Again, it is trivially self evident the welfare of the people are
inextricably linked to the welfare of the nation.
Josh Rosenbluth
*us*
General welfare definitely involves not poisoning the populace.
Jeff Strickland
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:1o1ee5ld5uu3f4rji...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:41:29 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You should study the family of Valerie Jarrett. Look up Van Jones
>>(resigned
>>in disgrace of his socialist views). Consider the life and career of the
>>Diversity Czar, the guy at the FCC that thinks Hugo Chavez has policies
>>worth emmulating. Listen to the hate filled rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright.
>>Check out Bill Ayers. All of these people (ALL OF THEM) are socialists at
>>best, and maybe even outright communists.
>>
>
> This screed you just posted the only time you've whined
> and cried?
>
>>Then there's Nancy Pelosi, certified whack job from the ultra-far-left
>>city
>>of San Francisco.
>
>
>> Barrack Hussein Obama and his darling bride have been
>>steeped like an overused tea bag in socialism their entire lives.
>
> you feel good as long as the word "socialism" is put in
> somewhere?
>
>>Socialism
>>is NORMAL for these people.
>
> and equal sharing of power ever in place in the United
> States?
>
>>Except the part where they personally have to
>>give up their wealth for the greater good.
>
>
> No one is asking anyone to "give up their
> wealth"---that's just an inference suggesting taking it
> all. A PORTION of wealth is taxed by virtue of it
> being legal, moral, ethical, and constitutional.
>
>>They want you to stand in line to
>>forfiet your wealth, but they are not going to be standing in the line
>>with
>>you, you can bet your last dime on that.
>
>
> Only a tin hat, zapped so many times it's mushed your
> brain believes that legal, moral, ethical and
> constituional taxation is bad.
>
Your entire argument is to ignore the facts and bury your head. My argument
is to pull your head our of your ass and look around at what's happening.
You guys on the Left have complained for 8 years that Bush/Cheney were
wholesale shredding the Constitution. The fact is, Obama has done far more
harm in less than a year than Bush did in 8.
I don't know who the Marxist was that Bush had on his team, but Val Garrett,
Obama's Chief of Staff, has family relations that date back to Obama's
childhood, and include most of the people that Barrack and Michelle grew up
with, and the history of these people -- all of them -- is steeped in
Marxist ideals.
ACORN -- the now disgraced community organizor -- is related to all of these
people, and Obama was junior council for them. Everybody that Obama has
surrounded himself is spooky. You really should do some homework.
You are getting this council from a guy that once gave serious consideration
of voting for Obama. I saw the same stars and twirl-wheels that have you
mesmerized, but as I looked deeper and got past the shiny stuff, Obama is a
dark character. Very, very dark.
Peter Franks
The grant of the authority extends to the general welfare of the United
States, not the populace.
The general welfare of the populace is the exclusive domain of the states.
Jeff Strickland
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message
news:88dee5h7i6ga3f9k9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:36:33 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>They want you to stand in line to
>>>>forfiet your wealth, but they are not going to be standing in the line
>>>>with
>>>>you, you can bet your last dime on that.
>>>
>>> There you go again
>>>
>>> Only a tin hat, zapped so many times it's mushed your
>>> brain believes that legal, moral, ethical and
>>> constituional taxation is bad.
>>>
>>
>>Your entire argument is to ignore the facts and bury your head. My
>>argument
>>is to pull your head our of your ass and look around at what's happening.
>
> they do not qualify as legitimate
>
>>You guys on the Left have complained for 8 years that Bush/Cheney were
>>wholesale shredding the Constitution. The fact is, Obama has done far more
>>harm in less than a year than Bush did in 8.
>
>
> You only BELIEVE that Obama has......
>
I only believe? Sheesh.
He's got no Constitutional authority to bail out anybody, buy a car company,
cram health care down our throats, or make veiled threats to shut down radio
and television. All of these things he has done.
Bush sought ways to protect us from a direct attack, one of those ways was
to monitor domestic communications with international destinations thought
to be terrorists. Nobody that has been ensnared in Bush policies has proven
to be ensnared wrongly. One guy, Jose Padilla, even begins to remotely run a
red flag up the pole that rights violations were carried out against US
citizens. The entire fucking country is ensnared in Obama's constitutional
violations.
>>I don't know who the Marxist was that Bush had on his team,
>
> Of course you don't, Jeffy
>
> That's why nothing you complain about has any ring of
> crediblity in it. You're WHINING about something that
> you fail to recognize in your own fucking ideology you
> embrace.
>>
>>ACORN -- the now disgraced community organizor --
>
> What "disgrace" rises above the behavior and character
> of the last 15 years of conservatives republicans,
> Jeffy?
>
> "toe-tapping", Adultery, S&M, prostitution hiring,
> embezzlement, perjury, lying, bribery, fondling, sleaze
> of all manner----including indictments, guilty
> verdicts, jail times, resignations---the whole works
> (most of which was forced)
>
> Yet not one fucking criminal charge has ever been
> suggested as possible in the ACORN political smears.
>
Say what? ACORN is under criminal investigation in 15 States. You're hiding
behind a lack of indictments. The lack only means the investigations are
ongoing. ACORN is linked to illegal voter registrations in 15 states, and in
New Mexico, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in a drug house were found with voter
materials to obtain absentee ballots, thousands of them, from the
registrations from ACORN illegal registrations.
A county sheriff found his 13-year old daughter and her 16-year old friend
with voter registration cards.
>
>>You are getting this council from a guy that once gave serious
>>consideration
>>of voting for Obama.
>
> Jeffy, I know your posting history on the usenet
>
> You're a fucking liar.
>
You have your head pushed up your ass so far, you don't know what day it is.
Josh Rosenbluth
> <smo...@board.com> wrote in message
> He's got no Constitutional authority to bail out anybody, buy a car company,
> cram health care down our throats,
Under either the Spending Power or Commerce Clause he has the authority.
> or make veiled threats to shut down radio
> and television. All of these things he has done.
Shut down? I don't think he's done that. Bitch about? Yes, that's his
Free Speech right.
Josh Rosenbluth
Strabo
> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> A Socialist is as a Socialist does.
>
> Ideological nonsense
>
> The closes thing I am to any kind of "-ist" is pragmatist. As in: if
> it works, screw the ideological implications. If it doesn't work,
> then likewise screw the ideological implications.
>
Of course, no principles. The end justifies the means.
As I said, a Socialist is as a Socialist does.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>> A Socialist is as a Socialist does.
>>
>> Ideological nonsense
>>
>> The closes thing I am to any kind of "-ist" is pragmatist. As in: if
>> it works, screw the ideological implications. If it doesn't work,
>> then likewise screw the ideological implications.
>
>Of course, no principles. The end justifies the means.
In politics, "principles" are determined by the Constitution and laws.
We need no others. Once those are accepted as a given, then the
"ends" are whatever "we the people" want, and so are the "means".
I do not have any ideological "principles" because ALL such principles
are wrong.
I have personal moral principles, but my principles apply to me, and
not to others. Ideological principles are an attempt to force ones
personal moral principles on the whole of society, which I feel is
morally wrong. (You of course are free to feel differently, and we
the people are free to vote either of our positions down).
>As I said, a Socialist is as a Socialist does.
A Socialist has many ideological principles, all of which I reject.
*us*
Do you really believe that the USA would exist without its people?
*us*
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:36:48 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>The grant of the authority extends to the general welfare of the United
>>States, not the populace.
>
>What is the United States---if not people?
Exactly.
Strabo
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:03:35 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> He's got no Constitutional authority to bail out anybody,
>
> BELIEF---it's not a truthful fact
>
> You BELIEVE he doesn't--(not a fact) then proceed to
> argue as if it were true
>
> That's why "snipping" is needed
>
> You have no argument.
>
The Constitution - if it ain't in there, it ain't authorized.
Peter Franks
No, I don't. But that isn't the point.
The point is the specificity of the delegated authority. There is a
distinction between "United States" and "populace", and that distinction
is relevant to the grant of authority.
Had the intent of the delegated authority been the general Welfare of
the populace, that would have been the terms (or equivalent) that were
used; they weren't, the grant extends to the entity of the United States
-- the confederation of states, NOT the people of the states.
*us*
>...There is a
>distinction between "United States" and "populace"...
Not really.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >Were
> >> >the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
> >> >it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
> >> >of the limited Government established by the people of America."
> >> >http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
>
> >> It did. The South lost the civil war
>
> >Apparently Mr LeChevalier, you've decided to supplant the meaning of
> >the words "...limited Government established by the people of America"
> >with *The South lost. Get over it!*, eh?
>
> The people of America did NOT establish limited government. They
> established almost unlimited state governments and a very weak and
> limited central government. When that failed, they established the
> Constitution with a somewhat stronger central government, and having
> the principle of Federal supremacy. Then we fought the Civil War, and
> the result was an even stronger Federal government, and the 14th
> amendment, which "we the people" established through our elected
> representatives to weaken the states even further.
In spite of your lil' "history lesson" Mr LeChevalier, you've posted
your belief
that you understand the spirit and intent of the US Constitution
better than
Mr Madison, the "father of the Constitution", backed by Alexander
Hamilton.
The power of the states was hardly "unlimited". Where do you think the
majority
of the US Constitution's BoR originated from...thin air? Lol
ITM, you've convinced yourself of the mythical "principle of Federal
supremacy" but
misinterpret the actual principles of Federalism and the principles of
the Enumerated
Powers Doctrine. Oh, that;'s right, in another post you wrote. "if it
works, screw the
ideological implications. If it doesn't work, then likewise screw the
ideological implications."
Lol
Civil War: Primary causes were economics and the "Doctrine of
Nullification".
Amendment XIV's primary function was to extend the jurisdiction of
U.S. Courts
over cases between a citizen and his state over rights protected in
the U.S. Constitution.
Neither claims a "principle of Federal supremacy".
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> Amendment XIV's primary function was to extend the jurisdiction of
> U.S. Courts
> over cases between a citizen and his state over rights protected in
> the U.S. Constitution.
At least that, and making citizens of the former slaves.
> Neither claims a "principle of Federal supremacy".
Forcing the states to adhere to honoring rights protected in the U.S.
Constitution through lawsuits in U.S. Courts, as well as forcing
states to grant citizenship to the fomer slaves, strikes me very much
as a statement of Federal supremacy.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
> On Oct 30, 7:38 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Amendment XIV's primary function was to extend the jurisdiction of
> > U.S. Courts
> > over cases between a citizen and his state over rights protected in
> > the U.S. Constitution.
>
> At least that, and making citizens of the former slaves.
See...we can agree on something Mr Rosenbluth, eh? :-)
> > Neither claims a "principle of Federal supremacy".
>
> Forcing the states to adhere to honoring rights protected in the U.S.
> Constitution through lawsuits in U.S. Courts, as well as forcing
> states to grant citizenship to the fomer slaves, strikes me very much
> as a statement of Federal supremacy.
I would venture a guess that you're confusing the "supremacy" of the
federal
government with the "supremacy" of the constitutional expansion of the
protections
of the BoR to individuals. IMHO, this is not a "principle of Federal
supremacy", else please
show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
Josh Rosenbluth
To me, they are part of the same thing. Both are examples of the
federal government (U.S. Courts in the example of enforcing the 14th
Amendment) reigning supreme.
> else please
> show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
The Supremacy Clause (*) establishes that when the federal government
acts within the Constitution, it trumps the states. The 10th Amendment
establishes that the states rule otherwise. So, the only question in
any particular instance (be it a court ruling, a Congressional statute,
an executive order - any act of the federal government) is whether or
not the federal government is acting within the Constitution. If so,
the feds reign supreme. If not, they do not.
Josh Rosenbluth
(*) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
notwithstanding
Peter Franks
Yes really.
Strabo
> Info Junkie wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 1:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I would venture a guess that you're confusing the "supremacy" of the
>> federal government with the "supremacy" of the constitutional
>> expansion of the
>> protections of the BoR to individuals. IMHO, this is not a "principle
>> of Federal
>> supremacy"
>
> To me, they are part of the same thing. Both are examples of the
> federal government (U.S. Courts in the example of enforcing the 14th
> Amendment) reigning supreme.
>
>> else please
>> show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
>
> The Supremacy Clause (*) establishes that when the federal government
> acts within the Constitution, it trumps the states. The 10th Amendment
> establishes that the states rule otherwise. So, the only question in
> any particular instance (be it a court ruling, a Congressional statute,
> an executive order - any act of the federal government) is whether or
> not the federal government is acting within the Constitution. If so,
> the feds reign supreme. If not, they do not.
>
Supremacy is an unfortunate misnomer.
Federal law holds sway when acting within the *limited authority* of the
Constitution. Otherwise...
-------
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
-------
This produces a balance of powers and the limits are expected to be
tested.
Info Junkie
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:51:39 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>
> <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
>
> constitutional law is a law.
As soon as you show us "ANYWHERE that" a broad sweeping generalized
"interpretation of constitutional law is a law."
*us*
Not really.
You want to poison all those people, you don't want to defend them
and you aren't supporting the general welfare of the United States.
Info Junkie
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > Info Junkie wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 1:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
> >> I would venture a guess that you're confusing the "supremacy" of the
> >> federal government with the "supremacy" of the constitutional
> >> expansion of the
> >> protections of the BoR to individuals. IMHO, this is not a "principle
> >> of Federal
> >> supremacy"
>
> > To me, they are part of the same thing. Both are examples of the
> > federal government (U.S. Courts in the example of enforcing the 14th
> > Amendment) reigning supreme.
>
> >> else please
> >> show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
>
> > The Supremacy Clause (*) establishes that when the federal government
> > acts within the Constitution, it trumps the states. The 10th Amendment
> > establishes that the states rule otherwise. So, the only question in
> > any particular instance (be it a court ruling, a Congressional statute,
> > an executive order - any act of the federal government) is whether or
> > not the federal government is acting within the Constitution. If so,
> > the feds reign supreme. If not, they do not.
>
> Supremacy is an unfortunate misnomer.
Agreed.
> Federal law holds sway when acting within the *limited authority* of the
> Constitution. Otherwise...
It is this "*limited authority*" that has not been followed
(primarily) since 1937.
> -------
> Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
>
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people.
> -------
>
> This produces a balance of powers and the limits are expected to be
> tested.
Yes, that is *supposed* to do just that...but (primarily since 1937)
this has been usurped by a Legislative Branch (usually liberal) that
has consistently passed broad and expansive unconstitutional laws as
trial balloons, deferring their constitutionality to a Judicial
Branch (usually liberal) that has more than happy to perform
legislative duties to accomodate this liberal agenda.
Most liberal (progressive) posters in this NG consider Amendment X is
an irrelevent part of the US Constitution. When asked to show
Amendment X has been revoked, some trot out Amendment XIV...but never
actually claim Amendment X has been revoked.
> > Josh Rosenbluth
>
> > (*) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
> > of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
> > Thin
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -g in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
> > notwithstanding- Hide quoted text -
>
Bob LeChevalier
How about where "freedom of speech" is interpreted to include obscene
gestures, political contributions, manner of dress for kids in school,
and all manner of other things that do not involve the use of the
mouth and/or vocal cords?
Or should the courts confine that to the "literal interpretation" and
allow states and localities to regulate the hell out of such things,
and the Executive branch to arrest people by executive order
("national security" of course) for insulting (i.e. threatening) the
President.
Josh Rosenbluth
That's exactly what I just said above, with the exception of a
disagreement about the extent of the "limited authority".
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
Not me. The 10th applies when the federal government has acted beyond
it's powers. On the other hand, the 10th is trumped by the Supremacy
clause when the federal government has acted within its powers.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> -------
> Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
>
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people.
> ------
No peeking, Googling or otherwise looking up the answer. Why is the
10th Amendment labeled "Article the twelfth"?
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
wrote:
> Info Junkie wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 1:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 30, 7:38 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Amendment XIV's primary function was to extend the jurisdiction of
> >>>U.S. Courts
> >>>over cases between a citizen and his state over rights protected in
> >>>the U.S. Constitution.
>
> >>At least that, and making citizens of the former slaves.
>
> > See...we can agree on something Mr Rosenbluth, eh? :-)
>
> >>>Neither claims a "principle of Federal supremacy".
>
> >>Forcing the states to adhere to honoring rights protected in the U.S.
> >>Constitution through lawsuits in U.S. Courts, as well as forcing
> >>states to grant citizenship to the fomer slaves, strikes me very much
> >>as a statement of Federal supremacy.
>
> > I would venture a guess that you're confusing the "supremacy" of the
> > federal government with the "supremacy" of the constitutional expansion of the
> > protections of the BoR to individuals. IMHO, this is not a "principle of Federal
> > supremacy"
>
> To me, they are part of the same thing. Both are examples of the
> federal government (U.S. Courts in the example of enforcing the 14th
> Amendment) reigning supreme.
To you, of course they would be "the same thing". What you (dis)miss
is that BOTH the state(s) and the federal goverment must abide by the
laws. THAT's the problem. Congress has exempted itself (and other
branches) from laws it passes, while the Executive Branch has exempted
itself by Executive Orders (illegally IMHO). You may feel the federal
government is "supreme", but not in the spirit and intent of the US
Constitution.
IMNSHO, if it's constitutional for the federal government to exempt
itself from the laws they impose on others, then it should be just as
constitutional for the states to exempt themselves as well...oh that
was nullification, eh? There is nothing in Amendment XIV that refers
to that.
> > else please
> > show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
>
> The Supremacy Clause (*) establishes that when the federal government
> acts within the Constitution, it trumps the states. The 10th Amendment
> establishes that the states rule otherwise. So, the only question in
> any particular instance (be it a court ruling, a Congressional statute,
> an executive order - any act of the federal government) is whether or
> not the federal government is acting within the Constitution. If so,
> the feds reign supreme. If not, they do not.
ROTFLMHO. "when the federal government acts within the Constitution:"
and "IF so". Your words are hollow and may be relgated to a "woulda,
shoulda, coulda" concepts that are NOT done.
One need only see a federal government that exempts itself (and other
branches) from the laws it passes and an Executive Branch that exempts
itself from (illegally IMHO) via the Executive Order. Your hollow
words might even ring true IF the (1930's) Court had NOT "got the
message" and instead NOT "followed the election returns" in lieu of
following the spirit and intent of those that ratified the US
Constitution. So they begin to legislate an agenda....and abuse of
say, the intent of the Commerce Clause*.
So now you no longer do you have a "Supremacy Clause" that imposes the
US Constitution on BOTH the states and the federal governments, you
have a single federal entity that acts as more totalitarian form of
government OVER the other....hardly the spirit and intent of those
that ratified the US Constitution, eh?
*In llinking the pieces, just refer back to Justice Kennedy's quote
(here's where you complain about repetition)
"...the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have
an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence
as it has evolved to this point....
...Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to
call in question the essential principles now in place
respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a
commercial nature."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&inv...
> Josh Rosenbluth
>
> (*) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
> made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
> made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
> of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
> Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
> notwithstanding- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Josh Rosenbluth
From what laws does Congress exempt itself from that the states must
comply with? From what executive orders has he executive branch
exempted itself from that the states must comply with?
Info Junkie
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:38:47 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>
> <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >In spite of your lil' "history lesson" Mr LeChevalier, you've posted
> >your belief
> >that you understand the spirit and intent of the US Constitution
> >better than
> >Mr Madison, the "father of the Constitution", backed by Alexander
> >Hamilton.
>
> constitution would eventually do, Spunkmonkey
>
> The considered it an "experiment" in government.
>
> second, after the ratification and the inclusion of the
> Amendments----IT---not they, Became the law
>
> You keep referrring to what Madison, Jefferson,
> Hamilton---"Though", or "wrote"----
>
> When the constitution was put into effect---it became
> the law----not their thoughts.
What you're saying then is that Article V is now null and void and
serves no prupose and it's best (IYO) to let the Courts legislate by
THEIR "interpretation" of the US Constitution. Thanks for clarifying
your position.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 12:55 am, smor...@board.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:51:39 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>
> >> <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >show the when Amendment X of the US Constitution was legally revoked.
>
> >> Show me ANYWHERE that a literal interpretation of
> >> constitutional law is a law.
>
> >As soon as you show us "ANYWHERE that" a broad sweeping generalized
> >"interpretation of constitutional law is a law."
>
> How about where "freedom of speech" is interpreted to include obscene
> gestures, political contributions, manner of dress for kids in school,
> and all manner of other things that do not involve the use of the
> mouth and/or vocal cords?
>
> Or should the courts confine that to the "literal interpretation" and
> allow states and localities to regulate the hell out of such things,
Now Mr LeChevalier, you well know that answering a question with a
question is no answer at all.
ITM, where in the debates of the FFs/framers/state ratifiers is there
a "literal interpretation" against such things?
> and the Executive branch to arrest people by executive order
> ("national security" of course) for insulting (i.e. threatening) the
> President.
What are you smoking/imbibing Mr LeChevalier?
Info Junkie
Oh my. Google would serve you well Mr Rosenbluth .
http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
Congress is exempted from the proposed health care plan.
>From what executive orders has he executive branch
> exempted itself from that the states must comply with?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12171.html
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Josh Rosenbluth
Yet another snark you often use, but should drop.
> Google would serve you well Mr Rosenbluth .
> http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
OSHA puts requirements only on private sector workplaces. State and
federal workplaces are treated alike (public sector exempt, private
sector not exempt).
THE FOIA, Ethics in Government Act, the Independent Counsel, Limitations
on Gifts, Non-Official Activities As Agent or Attorney, Personal Gain,
and Honoraria and Outside Compensation all do not apply to the states.
The Labor and Employment Laws that have No Relevance to the Activities
of Congress (of course) have no relevance to Congress.
> Congress is exempted from the proposed health care plan.
I'll comment on that on when we have signed legislation.
>>From what executive orders has he executive branch
>
>>exempted itself from that the states must comply with?
>
>
> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12171.html
The Federal Labor-Management Relations Program does not apply to the states.
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
The policies mandated in this executive Order doe not apply to the states.
I don't see anything in the above examples that support the claim the
federal government is treating itself in a special manner.
Josh Rosenbluth
{the rest snipped since there have been no follow-up comments for a few
posts}
David Johnston
wrote:
>Leonard wrote:
>> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
>> ...
>> Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
>> ...
>
>Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using
>the term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.
They don't. It's originally a media term, first used to attack the
president of the Bank of the United States in the 1830s. After the
overthrow of the Tsars in 1917, the media decided that czars were the
good guys, and it was nice short word that fit into headlines so much
better than, say "Commissioner". So every time a new Baseball
Commissioner, or Boxing Commission Chairman or Alchoholic Beverage
Control Board Chairman was appointed, a new metaphoric "czar" was
annointed. I'm sure you'll agree that "Beer Czar" fits much easier
into an 18 point headline than Alchololic Beverage Control Board
Chairman. It became standard media nomenclature for any appointed
official.
So by the time Franklin Roosevelt came along and appointed a bunch of
new Federal bureaucratic overseers, it was natural for the media to
dub them all czars. By the time Nixon came along he'd grown up with
the media using the term, and had no qualms about calling someone his
"Energy Czar", much to the delight of Gary Trudeau.
But after Nixon, subsequent more image-conscious administrations
shied away from using it, particularly after the Communist regime in
Russia fell meaning the czars were no longer the good guys, and no
administration is more image conscious than the Obama administration.
So of course they don't use the term "czar". It's used by Obama
opponents, and of course the media, because "czar" is still a nice
short word that fits into 18 point headlines with room to spare.
Peter Franks
The federal government was set up under the pretext of being a
confederation of sovereign states. Look at the Constitution, its
intended application is clear: specific grants of limited power to the
federal government that are for the purpose of supporting and protecting
the sovereignty of the states, as individual entities, and the
sovereignty of the nation, as a confederation.
The intent of the general welfare clause was to empower the federal
government so that it could act as a protecting agent, in this case, the
whole being larger than the sum of the parts. The intent was NOT to
protect individuals -- that is left to the individual states, or the
citizens themselves.
THE only way that you can make your weak argument is if you use word
substitution -- substituting what your words in place of the original
text. Without that, your argument falls to pieces.