Thursday, December 03, 2009
|
|
Upcoming SCOTUS Case: Major Implications for Obama’s Czars
|
|
Posted by :
Townhall.com Staff at
12:22 PM
|
Guest post from Ken Klukowski with the American Civil Rights Union
The American people are fed up with an out-of-control government, largely run by unaccountable officials like President Obama’s “czars.” The Constitution strictly limits how officials can get their jobs and their power, and the Supreme Court is about to weigh in on one of those cases.
Next Mon. on Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accountability Oversight Board (PCAOB).
The massive Sarbanes-Oxley law was passed by Congress in 2002 to regulate publicly-traded companies. It created a brand new government agency (because evidently there weren’t enough of those in DC) to regulate these companies. The members of that body, PCAOB, are appointed by a vote of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
There’s only one problem with that setup: It’s unconstitutional.
Article II of the Constitution says that high-ranking officials in the executive branch must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. For lower-ranking officials—called “inferior officers” in the Constitution—Congress can choose from three ways for those officers to be appointed. Congress can allow the president to appoint them by himself, or allow the courts to do it, or allow the agency head where those officers serve to appoint them.
The problem is that the current setup for PCAOB is none of the above. The petitioners here are arguing two things. First, that the PCAOB members have so much power that they must be considered high-ranking officials, meaning they must be presidential nominees subject to Senate confirmation. Alternatively, even if they’re inferior officers, having the SEC vote them in doesn’t fall into any of the three constitutional options for appointing inferior officers.
Any way you take it, then, these appointments are illegal. That means that PCAOB has no legal authority to regulate anyone, and all their acts to this day should be declared null and void.
The petitioners in this case are being represented by one of the most formidable Supreme Court lawyers in the country—Ken Starr. A former solicitor general and federal appeals judge, Starr will square off against Team Obama before the High Court.
Barack Obama is doing an end-run around the Constitution. No part of this is more blatant than his running a shadow government with his czars. The PCAOB case has major implications for restoring the Constitution and putting “We the People” back in charge of our government, and could lay the groundwork for getting rid of these radicals who operate outside the law.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
|
|
|
So what? The Dems will just ignore the law. The Repubs will bend over. This is an old story. |
|
|
What about Michelle's 25 staffers costing the taxpayers a fortune? |
|
|
although originally I doubt they intended for the czars to have this much power over the citizens. But, like good Americans, we have had to have new and improved czars with ten times the power of your regular czar. I think it has something to do with Ancient Chinese Secret. |
|
"I don't recall any wingnut cries of outrage back then."
Can you count? No other president has abused this privilege like he has. He's using czars to bypass the process set in place to avoid putting people into power without a vetting process. This is how socialists consolidate power and ignore the will of the citizens that granted them the power to begin with. He should be impeached.
|
|
"Previous administrations have had a lot of czars also. The term was first used when Reagan appointed a Drug Czar. There were more czars in the Executive Branch from 2000 to 2008 than there are now. I don't recall any wingnut cries of outrage back then."
The difference in czars in previous administrations they were not radicals like in this administration, there is the problem. |
|
|
abandoned the Constitution decades ago, back about the time the law changed from our servant to our master. |
|
LOL!
Although Bob pulls the "They did it too/two wrongs make a right" line, the fact is that the political class, regardless of party, doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. It is a museum relic to statists.
Only we unwashed, knuckle-draggers out here in flyover country think that the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's written on. |
|
You didn't finish the sentence,
"Wingnuts just cannot get their minds around the fact that Democrats can win an election, form a government, and run the country."
should read,
"..., and run the country into the ground."
Ahh, that's better. |
|
I'm a classic liberal. My first vote was in '88 when I voted for Ron Paul when he was the Libertarian candidate. I was bitchin' before that (Bennett as Drug Czar), and I've been bitchin' ever since.
Yes, you did pull the "two wrongs make a right" argument. It's there for all to see. Grace pulls the same crap in every one of her posts. It's a cheap defense, if one can call it that. |
|
Having here referred to us all as wingnuts, you think that makes Obama an actual Messiah. (Figures, for you.)
We must infer from the way you argue a problem like this one, that you prefer our country governed unconstitutionally. |
|
|
Laura Bush had one! These democrats and their enablers pull numbers from the air always have to be double checked. |
|
|
Bush had thirty some czars over a period of 8 years, not all at the same time and twenty four were confirmed by the senate! |
|
|
it is not what I think, it is the facts, these appointments are radicals, just like obama he is a radical, that is why I didn't want him as president, not that he was born in kenya you know, he is a radical you know. Your term wingnut is getting old, not all on the right are wingnuts, like all on the left are azzzzzholes, just seems like you all are. |
|
|
Being called a wingnut by an azzzzzhole is a compliment. |
|
Define classic liberal, Bob.
Bennett was confirmed (overwhelmingly if I remember correctly) by the Senate as Drug Czar in 1988.
"Previous administrations have had a lot of czars also. The term was first used when Reagan appointed a Drug Czar. There were more czars in the Executive Branch from 2000 to 2008 than there are now. I don't recall any wingnut cries of outrage back then." Where's your outrage, Bob?
"The problem may be that you don't understand the meaning of the term, though it's pretty self-explanatory."
Which term? |
|
But I see no connection between this case and the Obama czars based on what was written. Do these czars have any power to speak of? I haven't heard anything definitive, so I am just wondering. Still, I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of the PCAOB, probably with something along the lines of they are an extension of the SEC and as such are subject to their hiring policies, not Presidential appointment.
IF anyone can connect this to the government czars, please enlighten me because as of what's written, I see none. |
|
|
the Liberals missed the point though obtuse interpretation. There is no law that allows the executive branch to add personnel that is not confirmed by the Senate. they have to go through the screening process like everyone else who ever hopes to get a job in the Federal Service Corp to include a background investigation. All these Van Jones's and the person in charged of controlling wages and the other ragamuffins currently holding the ear of the president to include Valery Jarret and Co are a bunch of thug who should have RICO charges brought against them instead they have direct...DIRECT access to the highest office in the land. How about that SEIU thug who is constantly getting behind doors meetings with OLAMA? eh... |
|
poor, poor Bob. What's wrong? Didn't get enough coffee this morning?
heh, heh, heh |
|
I started at 5 am and finished about 10:30. I'm hoping to have the rest of the day off. I got a call last night and didn't get in till after midnight.
Despite my weariness, I can still make a fool out of poor poor Bob. |
|
|
I suggest that you keep making jokes about unemployment. Shout 'em from the mountaintop. Just be sure to tell everybody that you're a Democrat. |
|
|
Really? What are Cabinet members, then, interns? |
|
Let's set this up: You claim I'm not a classic liberal. I say "define clasic liberal". You say,
"You don't know what your own term means?"
Yes, Bob, I know exactly what a classic liberal is. I want YOUR definition.
I found this article to define my philosophy pretty well. If you can find statements that I've make which are contrary to this definition of classical liberalism, post them.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf
With regard to Bennett: I'll give a partial mea culpa. I knew it was the late 80's. The date is irrelevant though. The point is that I'd had enough of big govt even back then, and I wasn't fooled into believing that GHWB was another Reagan (as he was sold). And unlike the commies in the WH now, Bennett was actually confirmed by the Senate.
RE: Two wrongs. Yeah, you wrote it. "They did it too!" In that, there is no difference between you and Grace. You didn't make a judgement call, that's correct, but you did make the excuse. Spin it however makes you feel better.
|
|
|
sitting in a tree, "me, me," but, "no its me." The sounds of children at play, but really damned annoying here! |
|
"The sounds of children at play, but really damned annoying here!"
Hmmm, looks to me like Bob Munck provided verifiable facts and dates, and Plumber expressed his opinion and claimed he won the argument. Granted, that's how things go around here (actually, most right-wingers assume victory when they shout, "OH YA WELL YOUR JUST ANOTHER LIB FUDGEPACKER!!"), but some readers are able to engage their brains. |
|
P: Don't read it.
V: Maybe you can help Bob. Define "classic liberalism" and tell me where I've failed to deserve the moniker. I provide a link which you can reference. |
|
How about: bed wetting, long haired FM listening, pot smoking, womanizers, rapists (big C), liars, socialist high taxation loving, all about me-ers (BHO), abortion lovers, power hungry officials that are ignoring We The People...
Am I getting close? |
|
no.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf
|
|
|
Can we get rid of all the czars, strip Michelle of all her minions, and take away Obama's telepromptor, too? That would be sweet! |
|
|
|