It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House will allow lobbyists to serve on federal advisory boards

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Well played Barry.

This ruling does not surprise me. The corporate oligarchy seems to just keep chugging along, it is almost like they do not even try and hide what is going on anymore because very few are paying attention. Interesting timing too, with the civil unrest in St. Louis and the untimely death of Robin Williams. It is almost like they waited for a good distraction to pass this "regulation".



edit on 13-8-2014 by jrod because: law/regulation, not much of a difference




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


It is almost like they waited for a good distraction to pass this law.



I didn't see where this was actually a passed "Law" ?

More like "regulations".

Lots of confusion for sure.




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: WhiteAlice


Are you saying, by stating that "Obama is circumventing the Constitution again", that you believe that lobbyists should have the special right of being placed on advisory boards and committees?


You forgot to mention that I was questioning.

My actual quote is : "Looks like Obama was trying to circumvent the Constitution again ?"

To answer your question: "No". It should not be a "special right".

But I don't know whether or not it is a Constitutional right.




Thank you for the clarification on your position. The right to petition one's government to redress grievances, in my mind, seems to be more along the lines of actual petitions, letter writing (including group), protest, and other forms of contact. The reason why I perceive this particular demand as being a "special right" being requested is that the bulk of the US is unlikely to ever have the "right" to sit on one of these boards as they are very small (around 16 members usually). Demanding that precedence be taken over a lobbyist representing a group for these important governmental positions is kind of weird and is unequal to the right of the average American citizen to do the same.

Would you agree with that?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Depends how this is interpreted....

Federal Advisory Committee Act



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Depends how this is interpreted....

Federal Advisory Committee Act



Well, technically one would think that the President, under the powers granted to the Executive, could call upon whomever they see fit as an adviser. The problem with the FACA is that it is no longer necessarily in the President's power to pick his advisers. Instead, they are formed in one of these four ways:

1. Congress picks advisory committees for the President.
2. Congress may direct or authorize the President to create a committee.
3. The President may initiate an advisory committee and authorize it through press release, proclamation or executive order.
4. The President may request that private citizens or groups form an advisory committee or may use privately established committees already in existence.

Both 1 and 2 actually are a significant "separation of powers" issue.


In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. James Madision, Federalist #51


So, according to Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution, the intention was to keep the three branches (judicial, executive, and legislative) from interfering with each other as much as possible. However, in the FACA, Congress has the power to enforce an advisory committee on the executive.

See for yourself. That is not a power granted to Congress in the Constitution. www.usconstitution.net...


In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. James Madison, Federalist #51


Furthermore, the legislative branch (Congress) is the most powerful branch within the government and the executive (President) is the weakest. For that reason, Madison determined that the right of veto should exist for the President to help provide more balance. Putting the FACA into context though against this, this is basically Congress (strongest branch) forcing their opinions on who advises the President (weakest branch) in a power that isn't found in the Constitution.

Federalist #51

I can honestly say that, regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office, people are often barking up the wrong tree. The legislative is holding the reigns and their power is out of balance.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

"Legislative" yes and no.

executive orders play a major role.

just 2 examples........

Establishing the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Executive Order --Establishing the President's Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa


google: " obama eo advisory board "



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

To be honest, I'm not sure what you are trying to say or highlight here, Xuenchen. Could you explain with some more clarity?

Thanks in advance.
edit on 13/8/14 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join