Senate Seeks to Create Caesar?

[Calabrio]

Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
May 8, 2011
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/05/08/senate-seeks-to-create-caesar/
http://trevorloudon.com/2011/05/senate-seeks-to-create-caesar/

While all of America is distracted and focused on the death of Osama bin Laden, our President and his minions have been fast at work laying the groundwork for S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 to speed through the Senate and then make its way into the House and then to the President to sign. Yes, the other hand is quickly forming into a dictatorial fist that is about to smash our Constitution.

As you will recall, the beginning of the end of liberty in Rome commenced with Augustus Caesar who compromised the authority of the Senate through the force of arms and basically the Senate became a facade. America is poised with this proposed bill, to morph immediately from a Republic into an empire with the privileged eunuchs of the Senate as window dressing and a dictator – the first American Caesar – at the country’s helm.

And leading the progressive charge is Chuck Schumer (D-NY). No big surprise there. Schumer is an elitist Marxist and a first class progressive who hates America almost as much as he loves power. He introduced S. 679 on March 30th, 2011. He was joined by a gaggle of progressives from the left and the right. This is something I have been warning Americans about for a long time. If we are to survive as a nation, we must rid ourselves of ALL progressives or our nation is doomed and freedom will be swept into the dustbin of history. Schumer’s esteemed list of constitutional traitors is as follows:

• Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
  Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
  Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
  Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)
  Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
  Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
  Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
  Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)
  Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
  Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
  Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
  Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
  Sen. John Reed (D-RI)
  Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

From The Heritage Foundation, here is a succinct explanation of the bill:

The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.

In essence they want to give the President the sole power to appoint people to positions of his choosing within our government. Obama would be free to do this without the approval of the Senate. Senate approval of such positions is mandated by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 2 under the “Appointments Clause”:

… shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (emphasis added)

This bill will do away with the checks and balances that separate an American form of government from those such as Venezuela and Brazil. Already we have power mongers such as Cass Sunstein our Regulatory Czar (more commonly known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and more aptly titled the Office of Government Propaganda) running amok across the US using agencies such as the EPA as a weapon of regulation and control. There is not a single area in our country that Sunstein does not have his claws sunk deep into. It should scare the crap out of Americans, but all I hear are crickets. The silence of capitulation seals our fate as surely as the thunderous applause of approval – so ends the Republic.

More from The Heritage Foundation:

When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

I know Americans have not forgotten about Obama’s string of Czars. Czars that he was supposed to downsize or get rid of. Czars, which in my personal viewpoint, were and still are illegal under the Constitution. But progressives never go away, they just shift… As has done so many of Obama’s Czars. With this sweeping bill, over 200 positions will no longer require Senate approval. Obama will dictate who are his powerful lieutenants and who will control America. The Senate will merely be a sham to parrot Obama’s dictates. With this bill, checks and balances will be effectively nullified.

What does that portend you say? One day, your right to own a gun will be gone, just regulated away. Businesses will be nationalized even more than they are now. Heavy regulation will ensue concerning communications and the Internet. Many, many private businesses will whither and die. You will be told what and how much to eat – food and gas rationing will become the norm. Poverty and squalor will become equal for all as wealth is redistributed to other nations. If there are elections, they will be a joke and pointless. There will be a few powerful elites and then the masses. Guess which camp you and I will be in?

Our best hope at this juncture is that this abomination will be stopped in the House. We must weed out the progressives and we must win in 2012. This country will not survive another four years of progressive policies. Not as a Republic and not as a free entity anyway.

The bitter irony on display here, is that the same jackals that have barked and snarled and feigned horror at “American Imperialism,” are the very ones who now howl their support for a true American empire. All hail Caesar!

 

[compshmoe]

Oh dear God, really?? Obama goes from Hitler to Caesar? Let me know when he reaches Charles Manson stage, or.......... S A T A N ??? should we not just pass this point already? Besides, the whole thing sounds amazingly familiar with the law Michigan Republicans passed where they can declare any city in a state of emergency and take it over firing elected officials and so on.
What I really get a kick out of,is going back and reading some of the crap some of you wrote back in 2008 and so on like this jewel : " Democrats already putting Caesar face on coins " http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=46203
Just like all the other crap, it didn't happen.

 

[04SCTLS]

Oh big deal.
I don't think we have american traitors and british loyalists any more.
Congress controls the money.
Giving Obama this little bit so he can have his own team faster
in these hypercontentious times isn't much.
If they don't work out they can be sent home quickly
and the next elected president can chose his own team however he wants to.

 

[cammerfe]

Oops !!!!!

Looks as if some progressive toes got stepped on around here!

KS

 

[shagdrum]

Just like all the other crap, it didn't happen.

Nice to know we have leftist trolls around willing to destroy any chance of a mutually respectful debate by mocking any opinion they don't agree with.

I mean, it's not like this is an actual bill that undercuts the very rule of law or anything.

… shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

 

[Marcus]

Nice to know we have leftist trolls around willing to destroy any chance of a mutually respectful debate by mocking any opinion they don't agree with.

It's kind of hard to have a "mutually respectful debate" when the initial article contains such hyperbolic and knee-jerk rhetoric. It makes it impossible to take it seriously. Posting the Heritage Foundation article would have been more responsible, but that one isn't nearly as panic-inducing as the one by this right-wing conspiracy monger. It's much more satisfying to portray this as yet another national Armageddon.

I mean, it's not like this is an actual bill that undercuts the very rule of law or anything.

Great you have a link. Did you actually read it?

By the way, you selectively accented only the parts you wanted to see in the Constitution. Please see my additions:

… shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to determine which presidential appointments it gets to "advise and consent" to. Considering each president has well over a thousand appointments to fill when they come into office, this bill eliminates a tiny fraction of those requiring congressional approval. READ THE DAMN BILL! None of them are high profile positions. The only one that temporarily threw me for a loop was Treasurer of the United States, but it's likely no one here even knows who that is. I had to look it up myself, and it turns out the position pretty much has no power at all, unlike the actual Secretary of the Treasury. Most of the other positions are just as mundane, unless you consider "Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs" or the "Assistant Administrator for Management at the United States Agency for International Development" to be positions in which Obama plans to bring on the Fourth Reich.

A president needs to be able to fill these positions in order to pursue his agenda and execute the laws passed by congress. There's nothing unusual about that. You can argue that the sheer number of appointments is ridiculously high and say that it is proof of an out of control government. That may be a legitimate complaint, but the fact remains that every president fills those positions with people who are on the same page as him. Of course, the opposing party not only has an obligation, but has Constitutional authority, to throw down roadblocks to certain appointments. The question is just how far does that authority need to extend before it gets ridiculous?

Taken to the extreme, the president is utterly unable to enact policies that he was ostensibly elected by the people to carry out. The obstruction of the last 20 years by both parties has paralyzed the government to the point that neither side can get anything done. We've all heard the maxim that "our system is broke". Efficiency and effectiveness has gone out the window in favor of partisan bullsh!t.

This bill simply attempts to reduce some inefficiencies by removing some of the more inconsequential positions from being sent to Appointment Purgatory. It's not an all-encompassing congressional power-usurping roadmap to tyranny.

 

[shagdrum]

Like I said, nice to know we have leftist trolls around willing to destroy any chance of a mutually respectful debate by mocking any opinion they don't agree with.

 

[compshmoe]

Like I said, nice to know we have leftist trolls around willing to destroy any chance of a mutually respectful debate by mocking any opinion they don't agree with.

So you trying to spin it is ok? Unlike your version of answering any question with a long winded no point half a page of royal B.S........ I answer simply by pointing out that " the world is gonna end cause Obama is in charge" bull:q:q:q:q is really getting old.

 

[Calabrio]

So you trying to spin it is ok? Unlike your version of answering any question with a long winded no point half a page of royal B.S........ I answer simply by pointing out that " the world is gonna end cause Obama is in charge" bull:q:q:q:q is really getting old.

Just wondering, will you be addressing anything related to the original post, or simply engaging in hysterics?

Your first response was to post to another thread, posted by someone else, about a topic completely unrelated.
And your second one was just dismissive, defensive, and ignorant.

Perhaps you missed the BIPARTISAN list of Senators supporting the bill. A list not included in the older Heritage.org article.

 

[Marcus]

Just wondering, will you be addressing anything related to the original post, or simply engaging in hysterics?

The blog post you copied and pasted is a case study in hysterics. The first three paragraphs set the completely over the top hysterical tone for the rest of it.

Did you even read the bill? It's not that long. It only excludes about thirty minor positions from the ridiculously long list of over one thousand appointments that must be confirmed by congress. As the congress has the power to set its own rules on appointments, the bill is one hundred percent Constitutional.

Like I said, nice to know we have leftist trolls around willing to destroy any chance of a mutually respectful debate by mocking any opinion they don't agree with.

By whose definition of "troll" are you basing this? You may not care for my sarcastic tone, but my points are valid and on-topic. I gave the blog post more consideration that it actually deserved.

 

[Calabrio]

The blog post you copied and pasted is a case study in hysterics. The first three paragraphs set the completely over the top hysterical tone for the rest of it.

You've made it clear, you don't appreciate the tone but have no issue with the accuracy of the article.
Now that you've made this point, why don't we address the actual subject- the content of the bill and what that means in the context of our system of government.

Did you even read the bill? It's not that long. It only excludes about thirty minor positions from the ridiculously long list of over one thousand appointments that must be confirmed by congress. As the congress has the power to set its own rules on appointments, the bill is one hundred percent Constitutional.

Only 30 positions?
And I disagree with your sentiment that they are "minor positions," because when you consider the power of the bureaucracy, and the expansive and continually expanding power of regulation, those positions being considered hold a lot of power.

You say it's "constitutional" but what it represents is the legislative branch ceding more power to the executive branch. While we can argue whether it's legally constitutional, I think the more important discussion is whether it's consistent with the values and philosophy of the Constitution.

I gave the blog post more consideration that it actually deserved.

So you support the bill?
You have no concern about balance of power or rule by unelected, appointed, bureaucrats?

Of course, this is even more alarming under this President because of his history of radical appointments to date. Some were approved by the complacent, lazy, Senators, some through recess appointments. With that stated, such a bill should be opposed REGARDLESS who is President. And, as I've pointed out, this bill has some BIPARTISAN support. Progressives from both parties support his philosophy.

 

[ratdog442]

Sen. Harry Reid

Watching C-Span while working at my home office when Sen. Reid showed up on the senate floor with a black eye and a sling on his right arm...what happened to him?

 

[Calabrio]

Watching C-Span while working at my home office when Sen. Reid showed up on the senate floor with a black eye and a sling on his right arm...what happened to him?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/harry-reid-dislocates-shoulder_n_857414.html

 

[shagdrum]

By whose definition of "troll" are you basing this?

I already pointed to standard of judgement I used.

Like I said, nice to know we have leftist trolls around willing to destroy any chance of a mutually respectful debate by mocking any opinion they don't agree with.

 

[shagdrum]

So you trying to spin it is ok? Unlike your version of answering any question with a long winded no point half a page of royal B.S........ I answer simply by pointing out that " the world is gonna end cause Obama is in charge" bull:q:q:q:q is really getting old.

It is possible to "simply point out" something without throwing a temper tantrum and without belittling the opposing point of view in the process.

People only jump to those kind of hysterics when they have no true point to make because it adds the pretense of credibility to a position that lacks it.

 

[Marcus]

You've made it clear, you don't appreciate the tone but have no issue with the accuracy of the article.

There's very little in the blog post that can even be checked for accuracy because it's comprised mostly of alarmist predictions of the end of the Republic. If you want to consider each statement made in the blog post as a statement of fact, then hell yes I have issues with its accuracy. If you admit that the statements are merely opinion, then I'll say I have major problems with the conclusions drawn.

Now that you've made this point, why don't we address the actual subject- the content of the bill and what that means in the context of our system of government.

Yes, let's look at the contents of the bill PLEASE! That's what I've been trying to stress the whole time. Have you read it or are you just taking this blogger's word for what it contains? It's a simple yes or no question.

Only 30 positions?
And I disagree with your sentiment that they are "minor positions," because when you consider the power of the bureaucracy, and the expansive and continually expanding power of regulation, those positions being considered hold a lot of power.

I concede on the "30 positions" statement. After further research, the bill eliminates about 200 of the 1200 or so appointments that are currently subject to congressional approval. So the author got that part right. But that's about all she got right.

The remaining 1000 positions still require congressional approval, so this is far from a complete usurpation of congressional power. Nor does it "do away with the checks and balances that separate an American form of government from those such as Venezuela and Brazil." What I described as "minor positions" was admittedly vague, but it turns out the Constitution does delineate between what positions require approval and those that the congress can defer to the president. I give credit for the following to this article, one of the only ones I could find that actually dissects the bill and examines it in a reasonable manner.

Article II, section 2 describes presidential appointments. The part in question states that,

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."​

Note the bold. Now let's look at the following part:

"but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone..."​

See the difference? In short, congress must, by law, advise and consent to any appointment of officers, but can defer to the president on appointments of minor officers. This can't be changed by any law. The only question is what differentiates an "officer" from a "minor officer".

The article quotes the case of Edmond v. United States, a 1997 Supreme Court case that addressed the those definitions. From the article:

Thus, “[t]he prescribed manner of appointment for principal officers is also the default manner of appointment for inferior officers,” Edmond, 520 U.S., at 660.

Edmond takes up where section two leaves off, elucidating the threshold test for whether a position is an inferior office for which Congress may waive Senate confirmation. The test is not the importance of the functions carried out by the officer, id., at 662, but their functional subordination to a principal:

the term "inferior officer" connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President: Whether one is an "inferior" officer depends on whether he has a superior. … [Thus,] "inferior officers" are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.​

The article then continues on to look at each of the positions and whether they qualify as "minor officers." Of all of them, four could be considered as possibly unconstitutional because those positions answer directly to the president. A much larger portion of the positions were found to be questionable whether they even fell into the category of needing congressional approval at all. The remaining positions easily fall into the category of "minor officers" because they all answer to a superior who is not the president.

The article concludes:

"In conclusion, the bill is for the most part unexceptional—certainly from a Constitutional perspective, and I think also from a policy standpoint. A few of the changes it makes appear to be unconstitutional and should be removed from the bill, but it should be readily apparent that this is hardly the stuff of dictatorship in ovo. While the fact that “a congressional cession of power is voluntary does not make it innocuous,” Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417, 452 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring), I doubt that the Republic will end if the Senate cedes its veto power over the Administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. "​

I'm sorry for going to such lengthy extreme to prove a point, but it needs to be understood that this isn't just some arbitrary takeover of congressional power that your inflammatory article claims. Whether congress should cede these appointments can be argued one way or another. But to claim that the Obama administration is "quickly forming into a dictatorial fist that is about to smash our Constitution" is grossly irresponsible garbage.

You say it's "constitutional" but what it represents is the legislative branch ceding more power to the executive branch. While we can argue whether it's legally constitutional, I think the more important discussion is whether it's consistent with the values and philosophy of the Constitution.

Addressed above.

So you support the bill?

I don't think the bill would make much of a difference even if passed. I do find it ironic that Cass Sunstein, one of the bogeyman of the right mentioned in your blog post, was, in fact, appointed by consent of congress. And the position that he holds isn't mentioned anywhere in the bill. Why? Because he reports directly to the president, thus the position must be confirmed by congress.

You have no concern about balance of power or rule by unelected, appointed, bureaucrats?

When you put it in such a vague way, it certainly sounds scary. What I maintain is that the positions named in the bill are not of much consequence. I've yet to see a cogent argument to the contrary.

Of course, this is even more alarming under this President because of his history of radical appointments to date. Some were approved by the complacent, lazy, Senators, some through recess appointments. With that stated, such a bill should be opposed REGARDLESS who is President. And, as I've pointed out, this bill has some BIPARTISAN support. Progressives from both parties support his philosophy.

The "radical appointments" argument is really getting old, and is only being perpetuated by what I would consider to be much more radical elements on the right.

As far as recess appointments, if Obama really was the radical out to destroy the Constitution, why hasn't he just used recess appointments to install all of his progressive America-haters in one fell swoop? Bush made 171 recess appointments during his tenure, it's not like this is a phenomenon only of the Left.

I have no idea why you believe the fact that the bill has "BIPARTISAN" support bolsters your case. The fact that it was co-sponsored by several Republicans just supports the case that these positions are not important enough to waste time and resources on.

Two of the "traitorous" Republicans sponsors, Johanns and Kyl, have over a 90% score from the American Conservative Union, and with the exception of Collins, the rest are in the high seventies or eighties. The fact that these senators would be considered traitors just proves how far the tea party has driven the Republican party off the tracks and into an extreme right fantasyland.

 

[Marcus]

I already pointed to standard of judgement I used.

​

More proof by assertion I see.

 

[shagdrum]

More proof by assertion I see.

That doesn't even make sense.

It is worth noting that you are continuing to engage in mocking to dismiss...

...comprised mostly of alarmist predictions of the end of the Republic...

Also, have you ever heard of the concepts of mission creep, scope creep or bureaucratic overreach?

 

[shagdrum]

FYI, citing a court case does not constitute confronting "whether [the law in question is] consistent with the values and philosophy of the Constitution".

 

[shagdrum]

Our Founders knew that government overrun by bureaucrats would suffer from the worst weaknesses to which human nature is prone. For them, the way to prevent bureaucratic overreach was to divide up the power of government into separate branches as well as vertically between the federal and the state governments, avoid creating unaccountable bureaucracies, and insure commercial freedom and government by popular consent.
-Congressman Paul Ryan in an address to the American Enterprise Institute – July 21, 2010​

 

[Calabrio]

If you admit that the statements are merely opinion, then I'll say I have major problems with the conclusions drawn.

You're just being difficult.
It's very simple to discern the analysis with the factual details.
You disagree with the conclusion. That's something we can discuss.

Yes, let's look at the contents of the bill PLEASE!

Of course I've read it. The question is, do you understand not, not simply what it states, but what it means.

The remaining 1000 positions still require congressional approval, so this is far from a complete usurpation of congressional power.

So this is only significant if it is a COMPLETE USURPATION of the congressional power of advise and consent?
Incremental usurpation is of no concern to you?

Nor does it "do away with the checks and balances that separate an American form of government from those such as Venezuela and Brazil."

No it doesn't. Nor do I think that any of the political structures want a Venezuelan system, or a carbon-copy of the Brazilian one either.
But do we only oppose legislation that leads to radical change if it does it all in one swoop?

What I described as "minor positions" was admittedly vague,

Or deliberately dismissive.
Why? Because you seem to be defensively responding to this as though I'm engaging in a partisan attack on Democrats, when in truth, MY words have been bipartisan in their condemnation of the bill. I've specifically noted that this bill has BIPARTISAN support.

but it turns out the Constitution does delineate between what positions require approval and those that the congress can defer to the president.

The constitution makes delineations, but the federal government no longer operates within the restrictions of the constitution. Because of this, those appointments, most of which the founders would never have imagined, are part of a massively power bureaucracy that can issue regulation that have the power of law. In fact, the massive federal bureaucracy is extraconstitutional.

I'm sorry for going to such lengthy extreme to prove a point, but it needs to be understood that this isn't just some arbitrary takeover of congressional power that your inflammatory article claims.

That's not what the article states.
It's not a take-over of congress, it's the congress handing over it's power to the Executive branch.

Whether congress should cede these appointments can be argued one way or another. But to claim that the Obama administration is "quickly forming into a dictatorial fist that is about to smash our Constitution" is grossly irresponsible garbage.

Those are two separate issues, but they need not be discussed separately.

I don't think the bill would make much of a difference even if passed.

You mention Cass Sunstein.
Sunstein is an excellent example. First, he demonstrates just how either ignorant, gullible, or complicate the Republicans in D.C. are. Yet,despite his very radical contempt for the idea of individual liberty and the Constitution, he was still appointed with bipartisan support.

Another one that comes to mind was Donald Berwick. This was a recess appointment made to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Is this an important appointment? I think so. But Obama appointed him in a manner to avoid the scrutiny from congress.

But the most telling examples of how THIS administration would operate if free from the check and balance of Congress is the type of people he appointed to the positions typically referred to as "czars."

Would Van Jones have been able to get the consent of Congress?

Personally, I think most of his czars would have gotten the approval of congress as well, despite the fact that they were overwhelmingly marxist and "radically left." From border czars who aren't interested in "economic immigrants" coming illegal to manufacturing czars who have contempt for free markets.

The "radical appointments" argument is really getting old, and is only being perpetuated by what I would consider to be much more radical elements on the right.

Why don't you define what radical means to you.
Let's discuss what constitutes a "radical" view.

As far as recess appointments, if Obama really was the radical out to destroy the Constitution, why hasn't he just used recess appointments to install all of his progressive America-haters in one fell swoop?

Why would he? He had powerful majorities in both the House and the Senate for the first two years of his administration.
And right now, he has the support of his political party and they still control the Senate.

And the national Republican party are clueless or complicate. I don't think that the institutional Republicans are particularly motivated by small government or protecting individual liberty either.

You mention Bush, but the Democrats were abusing the process and deliberately blocking the appointment process for political reasons, necessitating the recess appointments, not because he was appointing people who were "extremists." Here's a high profile example, like him or not, John Bolton isn't a radical. And his recess appointment wasn't done to shield him from scrutiny. It was done because the Congress would not give him an up or down vote.

The congressional minority shouldn't block all nominations.

I have no idea why you believe the fact that the bill has "BIPARTISAN" support bolsters your case. The fact that it was co-sponsored by several Republicans just supports the case that these positions are not important enough to waste time and resources on.

I think this comment demonstrates how your defensive response is simply knee-jerk. The post is about the Senate passing a bill, the consequence of which is to move us towards a "Caesar" like state, one with the appearance of the Republic. How Obama will utilize such changes is a secondary, an important one, but secondary.

The fact that these senators would be considered traitors just proves how far the tea party has driven the Republican party off the tracks and into an extreme right fantasyland.

Let's refocus this conversation.
I think there are two issues that really need to be discussed.

1. The power of bureaucracy. Because these appointments, many of them, while they may seem impotent, have a great deal of power because of their ability to regulate and micromanage our lives and can have a radical impact on our social, economic, and political condition.

Your dismiss take on this actually leads me to believe you haven't read the bill or you don't understand how the federal government works and how powerful that bureaucracy is. And how there are Republicans AND Democrats that support such expansion of centralized federal power. What they'll do with the power may differ, but that's still inconsistent with the values laid out in the constitution.

2. And what constitutes "radical" or "extreme."
I firmly believe that the ability to honestly debate these issues is undermined by our language. That the language we use is so imprecise that we could be in 95% agreement but completely talking past each other because of the language.

Why is it radical to think that Congress should not weaken the checks and balance of government? Why is it radical to think that the Constitution should be read literally and not simply bastardized and interpreted as though it were a political prop?
What's "radical" about any of the "radical" right that you refer to?

Were the founding father's "radical right?"

I really don't know what "radical right" means, unless it's simply used to isolate and vilify political opposition to marxist philosophy, race based, identity politics, internationalism, or nationalism (contrasted with federalism.)

Is it radical to think that the enumerated powers listed in the constitution should be recognized and applied?

 

[shagdrum]

...it's the congress handing over it's power to the Executive branch.

The doctrine of nondelegation describes the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of powers of any of the three branches of government to either of the other, to the administrative state, or to private entities. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.

* * *

In Federal Government of the United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, delegation of some authority is exercised as an implied power of Congress, and has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, as long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.​

In reference to that last line, it should be noted that the delegation of legislative authority only became accepted by the SCOTUS after FDR blackmailed the court in his court-packing scheme.

The SCOTUS's general acceptance of legislative authority delegated to the executive branch is not a reflection of the actual principles inherent in the Constitution but an abdication of those principles forced on the court through political chicanery.

In truth most federal bureaucracies are technically unconstitutional due to the nondelgation doctrine.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal - what are the positions in question? If it undersecretary to the secretary to the left handed dog walker on alternate Tuesdays - I wouldn't be too worried.

Aren't we suppose to be streamlining government - do you have any idea of how much a confirmation hearing costs?

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - what are the positions in question? If it undersecretary to the secretary to the left handed dog walker on alternate Tuesdays - I wouldn't be too worried.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-679

Aren't we suppose to be streamlining government - do you have any idea of how much a confirmation hearing costs?

Why don't we start by cutting the all of the left handed dog walker on alternate Tuesday positions instead?

 

[foxpaws]

I read most of the list - the people listed in almost all cases have at least 2 layers of appointed people above them... So, it isn't like these people are big policy/decision makers or advisers - they are grunts. Board members get elected, the managers don't in the private sector - these are managers.

I would have to agree Cal that just getting rid of them would probably be better... but, since that won't be happening - getting rid of the costly hearings seems to be at least a start at cost savings.

I would say that the original post is a whole lot of hysteria. In fact - I would go as far as saying it is fear mongering. The person who wrote it looks like they don't really understand the lack of power or even influence these positions hold.