[tinamasak]

Those provisions aren't the law if they are indeed unconstitutional. Unconstitutional enactments are void ab initio (on their face) and never have the effect of law. It's the judiciary that must ultimately decide that fact, however.

In which case theyre legally constitutional till someone with the authority says otherwise. The constitution does not give power to the President to nullify laws passed by congress (and himself in this case). The constitution even specifically says they can make laws about the executive.

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Since the Constitution doesnt say anything about the president creating positions, the congress can make whatever laws they want creating or prohibiting positions.

[tinamasak]

Congress cannot pass laws taking away the constitutional powers of the President. If they can, the branches aren't co-equal.

Yes, legally they can pass whatever they want, even something unconstitutional. They do it all the time. But, here are the powers of the President:

-commander and chief of the army and navy, and militias when called into service
-to require the opinion of officers in the executive dept
-to pardon
-to make treaties with the consent of congress
-to appoint officers of the state
-to fill vacancies
-to reccomend measures to, convene, and adjourn congress
-to recieve ambassadors
-to take care that the laws are executed
-commision officers of the state
-oh, and any powers congress gives him

Thats it. Almost every other operation of govt is the power of congress.

[incizarry]

Actually, Congress' powers do not include taking away the President's powers, even if he is exercising ones he shouldn't. The courts are the ones that invalidate illegal uses of Presidential power, not Congress.

Congress makes the laws, but the President controls the FBI. Congress can't order anyone arrested, because Congress has no police power. Congress' sole method of enforcing its will is impeachment.

[tinamasak]

Actually, Congress' powers do not include taking away the President's powers, even if he is exercising ones he shouldn't. The courts are the ones that invalidate illegal uses of Presidential power, not Congress.

Congress makes the laws, but the President controls the FBI. Congress can't order anyone arrested, because Congress has no police power. Congress' sole method of enforcing its will is impeachment.

Actually, read the consitutiton. ALL law making power resides with congress, even regulating the executive. Ive noticed that in this conversation, Im the only one actually quoting the constitution.

[amehoubFomo]

I swear, when things don't go your way or fit your mold of ideas they must be a racist. You liberals, have all the disparaging remarks, your a racist, stupid, idiot, evil, etc etc. Get a grip.

ahoy Forplay,

actually, its a term i hardly, if ever use. see if ye can find one post whar i claim any 'o the fine folk who sail with us be racist.

i always liked CharlesDavenport and had no quarrel with'm, but he's a racist alright.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/brea...dor-china.html

- MeadHallPirate

[Noilemaillilm]

Actually, read the consitutiton. ALL law making power resides with congress, even regulating the executive. Ive noticed that in this conversation, Im the only one actually quoting the constitution.

You have an opinion of what the constitution means, that is quite different from that of the courts. But to go back to that often misinterpreted document, the remedy for congress, if it feels that this signing statement is beyond the pale, is to impeach the president. So as a practical matter, Obama can appoint czars, and those czars will be paid, and until you can count 67 guilty votes in the Senate, that is the actual state of the law.

[urbalatte]

You have an opinion of what the constitution means, that is quite different from that of the courts. But to go back to that often misinterpreted document, the remedy for congress, if it feels that this signing statement is beyond the pale, is to impeach the president. So as a practical matter, Obama can appoint czars, and those czars will be paid, and until you can count 67 guilty votes in the Senate, that is the actual state of the law.

If Obama wants to pay them out of his own pocket, he is certainly free to do so.

Other than that, appropriations go through the House of Representatives. You might want to read what the Constitution of the United States says about that.

[nannysuetle]

I don't think that the czars are unconstitutional, but, I don't like the signing statements. Surely there's another way for Obama to have czars without running afoul of current law.

Ben

[tinamasak]

I don't think that the czars are unconstitutional, but, I don't like the signing statements. Surely there's another way for Obama to have czars without running afoul of current law.

Ben

The question isnt whether the czars are unconstitutional, but whether Obama ignoring the law is constitutional.

[D6Ri5u13]

I swear, when things don't go your way or fit your mold of ideas they must be a racist. You liberals, have all the disparaging remarks, your a racist, stupid, idiot, evil, etc etc. Get a grip.

Racists don't exist in 2011. Thanks for enlightening me. But hey, I can introduce you to hordes of em here. My younger brother is one of them. Hates Obama cause he is just a "nigger". Is convinced no nigger could ever be anything but a field hand.

I would be surprised if this board has no racists. Not calling anyone a racist, mind you, but just that I would be surprised. I see em everyday where I live. Not many would really admit to it though. Closet racists. Who reveal themselves in their speech, if you watch it closely.

[layevymed]

In which case theyre legally constitutional till someone with the authority says otherwise. The constitution does not give power to the President to nullify laws passed by congress (and himself in this case).

Not so at all. An unconstitutional enactment is always void on its face. That's not even my opinion...that's a well settled fact not only by the judiciary but self-evident explanation.

The judiciary makes the binding determination what enactments might be unconstitutional. If someone makes a challenge, the court has created a standard of review of presumption of constitutionality and placing a heavy burden of persuasion upon the challenger. That said, an unconstitutional law is never constitutional until a court says otherwise. The court is merely declaring a fact that's been in existence since its inception. A law cannot be enacted in violation of the constitution, and any such enactment has always been void on its face because it is an attempt to do something it had no power to do in the first place.

The constitution even specifically says they can make laws about the executive.

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Since the Constitution doesnt say anything about the president creating positions, the congress can make whatever laws they want creating or prohibiting positions. (bolding added) That misreads the Necessary and Proper Clause. If anything, an attempted law seeking to expressly or effectively deny POTUSs from performing their executive powers does the exact opposite of performing what is necessary and proper....it undermines and denies them by direct means or frustration of purpose. It's also incorrect that the executive is not empowered to create positions.

Powers of Appointment

The President of the United States has several different appointment powers.

Before taking office, the President-elect must appoint more than 6,000 new federal positions. The appointments range from top officials at U.S. government agencies, to the White House Staff, and members of the United States diplomatic corps. Many, but not all, of these positions are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The President also has the power to nominate federal judges, including members of the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. However, these nominations do require Senate confirmation, and this can provide a major stumbling block for Presidents who wish to shape their federal judiciary in a particular ideological stance. The President must appoint judges for the United States District Courts, but he will not often defer to Senatorial courtesy in making these choices.

As head of the executive branch, the President must appoint the top officials for all of the federal agencies. These positions are listed in the Plum Book which outlines the 700,000 bureaucratic positions that the President has the right to fill. In the case of ten agencies, the President is free to appoint a new agency head at his pleasure. For example, it is not unusual for the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency or the NASA Administrator to be changed by the President. Other agencies that deal with federal regulation such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission have set terms that will often outlast the time a President sits in office. For example, the members of the Federal Reserve board serve for twelve years. This is to ensure that these agencies can act independently of political control. The President also appoints members to the boards of directors for government-owned corporations such as Amtrak. The President can also make a recess appointment if a position needs to be filled while Congress is not in session.

In the past, Presidents had the power to appoint all members of the United States civil service. This use of the spoils system allowed Presidents to reward political supporters with jobs. Following the assassination of President James Garfield by Charles J. Guiteau, a disgruntled office seeker, Congress instituted a merit-based civil service in which positions are filled on a nonpartisan basis. The Office of Personnel Management now oversees the staffing of 2.8 million federal jobs in the federal bureaucracy.
The President must also appoint his staff of 1,800 aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve, "at the pleasure of the President."[1] Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[nannysuetle]

Spot on, Pete. The Congress can't prevent the President from doing necessary and proper actions to execute his duties. I take back what I said about about this particular signing statement. This fits quite well with my current Constitutional Law course.

Ben

[tinamasak]

Not so at all. An unconstitutional enactment is always void on its face. That's not even my opinion...that's a well settled fact not only by the judiciary but self-evident explanation.

The judiciary make the binding determination what enactments might be unconstitutional. If someone makes a challenge, the court has created a standard of review of presumption of constitutionality and placing a heavy burden of persuasion upon the challenger. That said, an unconstitutional law is never constitutional until a court says otherwise. The court is merely declaring a fact that's been in existence since its inception. A law cannot be enacted in violation of the constitution, and any such enactment has always been void on its face because it is an attempt to do something it had no power to do in the first place.

That misreads the Necessary and Proper Clause. If anything, it commands that the Congress properly fund so that the executive can perform his/her delegated powers. A law passed over veto that purports to deny the POTUS his/her delegated pardon power or any other delegated power does the exact opposite of performing what is necessary and proper so that the POTUS can perform his/her powers....it undermines and denies them by frustration of purpose.

And you're incorrect that the executive is not empowered to create positions.



Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You misread what I said. The constitution does not give the President power to create positions. Congress has given the President power to appoint officers where congress has created those positions in law, and to hire employees within depts that it creates. The President has no power other than what the constitution or the constitutional process of lawmaking gives him, and I listed the constitutional ones above. Since it does not give him the power to create Czars, congress has the power to prohibit it through its constitutional power to make all laws.

As for constitutionality of itself, see Reality, Sec 4, Part B. Congress passes unconstitutional laws (IMO) all the time. But my opinion doesnt matter, no more than yours. The only authority to judge disputes in this country is the Supreme Court and courts they choose to delegate to. Since Congress followed the constitutional process of passing a law, it is a law, until the courts say otherwise, and the President must follow it, in thoery, if not reality.

If he is going to simply not follow the law, then he should be charged with a crime.

[nannysuetle]

You misread what I said. The constitution does not give the President power to create positions. Congress has given the President power to appoint officers where congress has created those positions in law, and to hire employees within depts that it creates. The President has no power other than what the constitution or the constitutional process of lawmaking gives him, and I listed the constitutional ones above. Since it does not give him the power to create Czars, congress has the power to prohibit it through its constitutional power to make all laws.

As for constitutionality of itself, see Reality, Sec 4, Part B. Congress passes unconstitutional laws (IMO) all the time. But my opinion doesnt matter, no more than yours. The only authority to judge disputes in this country is the Supreme Court and courts they choose to delegate to. Since Congress followed the constitutional process of passing a law, it is a law, until the courts say otherwise, and the President must follow it, in thoery, if not reality.

If he is going to simply not follow the law, then he should be charged with a crime.

It's never worked that way in practice, despite your theoretical framework.

Ben

[tinamasak]

Spot on, Pete. The Congress can't prevent the President from doing necessary and proper actions to execute his duties. I take back what I said about about this particular signing statement. This fits quite well with my current Constitutional Law course.

Ben

And again, what are his duties?

[tinamasak]

It's never worked that way in practice, despite your theoretical framework.

Ben

Exactly my point. The govt does unconstitutional things all the time.

[nannysuetle]

Exactly my point. The govt does unconstitutional things all the time.

True. I just don't think this is one of them.

Ben

[layevymed]

You misread what I said. The constitution does not give the President power to create positions. Congress has given the President power to appoint officers where congress has created those positions in law, and to hire employees within depts that it creates. The President has no power other than what the constitution or the constitutional process of lawmaking gives him, and I listed the constitutional ones above. Since it does not give him the power to create Czars, congress has the power to prohibit it through its constitutional power to make all laws.

As for constitutionality of itself, see Reality, Sec 4, Part B. Congress passes unconstitutional laws (IMO) all the time. But my opinion doesnt matter, no more than yours. The only authority to judge disputes in this country is the Supreme Court and courts they choose to delegate to. Since Congress followed the constitutional process of passing a law, it is a law, until the courts say otherwise, and the President must follow it, in thoery, if not reality.

See Reality, Sec. 1, Part 1. What I said was not opinion as to that...it is fact. An unconstitutional law is void on its face. Even the judiciary has held so as a self-evident fact. They don't become unconstitutional upon such a judicial determination...they are unconstitutional and therefore void, and that's what a court holds.

If he is going to simply not follow the law, then he should be charged with a crime.

It's his position that he's doing exactly that...upholding the law--the highest and binding law--against a set of invalid provisions. If Congress passed an attempted law declaring that Obama should be immediately removed from office and placed in a state of slavery to a white plantation owner, one would be very hard pressed to claim that he'd be compelled to follow such an obviously void law until a court holds it to be so that is, in actual fact, no law at all at all material times since its attempted enactment.

[incizarry]

Goober got one thing wrong. The czars don't have to be paid by Congress. Congress can defund czars, but the President can still pay them out of funds he controls, since Congress does not earmark every cent in the executive branch budget. In order to prevent czars from receiving taxpayer money, they would have to regulate every cent the White House receives for its personnel budget. Which they can do, but it's an awful lot of trouble.

[tinamasak]

Goober got one thing wrong. The czars don't have to be paid by Congress. Congress can defund czars, but the President can still pay them out of funds he controls, since Congress does not earmark every cent in the executive branch budget. In order to prevent czars from receiving taxpayer money, they would have to regulate every cent the White House receives for its personnel budget. Which they can do, but it's an awful lot of trouble.

Or they could just pass a law saying he cant spend money on X. Then if he does its breaking the law. He could probably worm his way around that, so at a certain point you just have to impeach him.