Senate Seeks to Create Caesar

page: 7
98
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzerI
Corruption runs rampant in DC.

*I'm disgusted*


How is this corruption?




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by beezzerI
Corruption runs rampant in DC.

*I'm disgusted*


How is this corruption?


Ummmm, oh I don't know.

At a guess, I'd say the deliberate erosion of the "separation of powers".



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Another Bush czar: birth control czar



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by zillah
 


F OBAMA

thats all i really wanted to say to this but since there is a 2 line thing i figured ill ramble on a bit more

screw obama, screw biden, screw em all with a big rusty screw

oh yea and screw the scotus!

ehhhhh scratch that, dont screw or f any of them, theyd probably like it to much



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


At a guess, I'd say the deliberate erosion of the "separation of powers".



Funny, Obama has increased the number of political appointees by a meer 12% or so over Bush. Bush increased them by 312% or so over Clinton. I guess the same can be said about our debt also.

Tell me, who is more guilty of a deliberate erosion of the separation of powers?

Why do you guys keep giving Dick and Bush a pass on everything? But if this administration does anything remotely like Dick and Bush then its an erosion of the separation of powers?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
this bill is proof that we have many people who would love nothing more than to see our country become nazi germany just under a different name and flag...smaller government please



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos

Originally posted by beezzer


At a guess, I'd say the deliberate erosion of the "separation of powers".



Funny, Obama has increased the number of political appointees by a meer 12% or so over Bush. Bush increased them by 312% or so over Clinton. I guess the same can be said about our debt also.

Tell me, who is more guilty of a deliberate erosion of the separation of powers?

Why do you guys keep giving Dick and Bush a pass on everything? But if this administration does anything remotely like Dick and Bush then its an erosion of the separation of powers?


Errr, because Obama is the PRESIDENT!?!?!
Blame Bush all you want, but it'll just make you sound like a member of his cabinet.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I am getting from reading through the replies there are bits and pieces people know, but not the whole picture when it comes to appointments, who has powers to consent to and the delegation of those powers. First, we of course go to the United State's Constitution where in Article II, Section 2 it reads:


...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...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.


Okay, so I am sure we all know the basics of this. An Officer of the Government needs to be appointed by the President. The key here though, is in the same clause, there is an 'out' to which Congress can, through law, delegate the authority of appointment of "inferior" Officers. It further states that those appointment powers can be delegated to the President himself, the Courts of Law or the Heads of the Departments.

A prime example would be a technician working for the FAA. That technician is an Officer of the United States of America. He works for the president, under the Department of Transportation and its Secretary. But through law, Congress has declared such a position as an inferior officer and the appointment of that technician is administered by a delegated agent under the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.

This bill, it seems is just to undo various positions that they initially put, under Law, as their responsibility to give advice and consent for appointment. Which this bill is seeking to, in accordance of the clause quoted, will delegate those appointments to the various Department Heads and under their regulation.

Having said that it leads to concern not because it will make the Office of the President one akin to Caesar as the title suggest; frankly it doesn't. Rather it exposes the behemoth bureaucratic mess our government has become.

Now...I would only be scared if the bill was a precursor to an amendment to the Constitution in regards to Section II, Clause 2. Striking completely the "...with advice and consent" from that clause would than be a real call to alarm. This though, nothing new nor even remotely scary.

Post Script:
U.S.C 49 is the law in which powers of officer appointment is granted by Congress to the Administrator of the Federal Administration Aviation. There is an old adage in regards to delegation that is key though. You delegate authority, not responsibility. This is how, through the form that I signed and was "signed" by the Administrator of my appointment of an Officer of the United States of America is legit.


may delegate, and authorize successive redelegations of,
to an officer or employee of the Administration any function,
power, or duty conferred upon the Administrator, unless such
delegation is prohibited by law;
edit on 10-5-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I am just adding my star/flag and response to the pile to try and help move this up to the top of the list.
There is another big thread out there about what we were being distracted from with all the OBL reporting. This could be it. This news is huge in its own right. Then, when you add it to the back drop of the FEMA camps, freeze dried food bid, etc. Well, then, it really is just out and out terrifying.

Excellent find.
Who wants to compose and paste a form letter that people can send to their representatives urging a no vote on this one? Does anyone have the skills to set up a website where people can just put in their personal contact information and select a rep from a drop down list so that lots of people will actually do it?

Myself, I do not have those skills. Not even close.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher3339
 


I am curious as to your position in regards to this proposed bill? Do you see it as dangerous? If so, how? Do you think this bill is circumventing Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which is where the "...with advice and consent"? Are you aware that by law, Congress can delegate (notice, not just the Senate) such appointments to other various persons such as the President alone, Courts of Law and Department Heads and also part of that very clause?

After reading my post just above yours, are those feelings still the same knowing this isn't anything dangerous and the bill itself is actually very focused and names the offices in which they are going to amend the USC?

So you want to just forward fear to representatives without actually having any knowledge or bother to learn more about the bill? You just like the title and based your whole post on it. ATS at its finest.
edit on 10-5-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Okay, actually this set up already exists on the web. Maybe we could do this:
Go here:www.emailmarketerclub.com...

Copy and Paste or make your own

As a concerned member of your constituency, I strongly urge you to vote no to S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. While I can certainly understand the desire to create a more efficient Federal Government, I worry that there is too much potential for abuse in this change to our Founding Fathers' clearly expressed intent for checks and balances in our republic.

Sincerely,



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by watcher3339
 


I am curious as to your position in regards to this proposed bill? Do you see it as dangerous? If so, how? Do you think this bill is circumventing Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which is where the "...with advice and consent"? Are you aware that by law, Congress can delegate (notice, not just the Senate) such appointments to other various persons such as the President alone, Courts of Law and Department Heads?

After reading my post just above yours, are those feelings still the same knowing this isn't anything dangerous and the bill itself is actually very focused and names the offices in which they are going to amend the USC?

So you want to just forward fear to representatives without actually having any knowledge or bother to learn more about the bill? You just like the title and based your whole post on it. ATS at its finest.



ATS at it's finest! Aw shucks, thanks. Oh, wait I see you were being sarcastic???
Actually it isn't just that I liked the title. It is that there is very real potential for abuse here. Oh, an unknown person on a conspiracy website has told me not to worry? Great! No problem then, is American Idol on tonight?

Congress gave the okay to the Federal Reserve too, a bunch of us are uncomfortable with that one too.

So, what, you suggest that I not contact my representative. I should just hush up now? If my representative has a good reason for wanting to support the bill, then HE can feel free to express it to me. That's how it works. We elect them and then they are supposed to educate themselves on important issues and we get to share our opinions with them and ask questions. If we don't like the way that they vote. We don't have to vote them back into office. So why would you feel it so necessary to try to make people feel like they shouldn't get to contact their representatives? Do you have some kind of vested interest in Sheeple?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
At a guess, I'd say the deliberate erosion of the "separation of powers".


Except that it isn't and it explicitly allowed for in the Constitution.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Maybe he will be able to appoint positions within our government but an Emperor like Caesar is stretching it a bit.

Still interesting to see how this will be abused.


it's not that he is Caesar now. but he is becoming more like Caesar with every passing month. look at how many bills this year were passed that give the president more power.

no this bill does not make obama all powerful but he is slowly getting there. and this is just another step in the staircase up to autocracy.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
thats crazy if he gets what he wants he will be unstoppable. they will rigg elections to keep him in and he will stay in power for a long time.. once he gets that he will just start to create his own government by throwing in different bills that his own guys will look at. that means they will pass



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher3339
ATS at it's finest! Aw shucks, thanks. Oh, wait I see you were being sarcastic???
Actually it isn't just that I liked the title. It is that there is very real potential for abuse here. Oh, an unknown person on a conspiracy website has told me not to worry? Great! No problem then, is American Idol on tonight?


Yes I was being highly sarcastic and for good reason. You quoted my whole post that was directed towards you but yet you threw up a straw man instead of answering the questions or even addressing the OPs assertion of "Senate Seeks to Create Caesar" sensationalism.

Is there potential for abuse. Absolutely, but not from this bill which is focused on specific changes to the USC. Its right there in the text. Can you show me where it has ambiguous text that can be potentially abused and say eventually give out-right power to the Office of the President to make non-inferior Officer appointments without the "advice and consent" of the Senate?



Congress gave the okay to the Federal Reserve too, a bunch of us are uncomfortable with that one too.


And here is your straw man. This has nothing to do with Congress presenting a bill that is in accordance with Article 2, Section II of the Constitution. Specifically they are exercising their duty by following the section of the clause that states:


...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.




So, what, you suggest that I not contact my representative. I should just hush up now? If my representative has a good reason for wanting to support the bill, then HE can feel free to express it to me. That's how it works. We elect them and then they are supposed to educate themselves on important issues and we get to share our opinions with them and ask questions. If we don't like the way that they vote. We don't have to vote them back into office. So why would you feel it so necessary to try to make people feel like they shouldn't get to contact their representatives? Do you have some kind of vested interest in Sheeple?


I stated my opinion on to why there was no reason to worry about this bill. It is nothing new nor extreme that the Senate is doing. I have shown the reasoning and the constitutionality of such a bill in that it doesn't strip the clause of "advise and consent" from the Constitution at all. Nor does it sidestep it.

You can go ahead and send a letter to your Congressman/Senator, but really I am not even sure they can give you the reasoning without seeking the advice from a multitude of advisors they retain to answer your questions and concerns. Which by the way; what are your concerns? You made none other than people should send a letter to their representative. For what? For doing their duty of allowing delegation of lessor officers of the United States of America not have to be advised by and consented by the Senate?

For fun, even if this bill passes the Senate, it will have to go to the House to get approval also. Reason being is the wording does not say Senate has the ability to make law regarding delegation of such a power, but rather Congress does. Congress includes both House and Senate. I never advocated nor will ever advocate silencing anyone's opinion; no matter my feelings on a situation. You projected your feelings on opposition into your reasoning.

But that won't stop people from taking silly claims and blowing them out of proportion and then claiming that the Senate is in some collusion with the President to seat him for life and seat allies for life around him!

That out of the way, I can tell you what I don't like about this as I have stated it. The massive amounts of bureaucratic nonsense that the Government has become is shown through this bill. The positions are made up to either give a pat on the back for a loyal worker or ally or to put into line someone that will give a Head of a Department grief that may have been appointed under a different President.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by beezzer
At a guess, I'd say the deliberate erosion of the "separation of powers".


Except that it isn't and it explicitly allowed for in the Constitution.


The words separation of powers is not, but the structure is clearly seen by the make up of Articles in the Constitution. Each article clearly defines separate functions to be performed by separate entities of the Federal Government they were creating.

Each article also defines what those sections can/cannot do; enumeration of powers.

There has always been a bit of battle between the connection though between the Presidency and the Senate; mostly because of the close ties it is given within their enumerated powers. The balance comes from a strong House and a strong Judiciary that are independent of anything Executive. You may think, well the Senate is separate from the Executive, but really it is tied closely with it.

The President of the Senate is the Vice President. The Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote. The Senate has the sole ability to hold the impeachment trial.

But there was good cause for this structure. Since the founders did not want to create a pure democracy but rather dilute and disseminate democratic principles far and down to the lowest levels of government, they also didn't want to create an aristocratic government that had no say from the citizens.

To do so, the House of Representatives was to be the democratic voice of the people. The heartbeat so to speak. The Senate (in original context which has been modified via the 17th Amendment) was the voice of the States. They were balancing forces to keep pure democracy and pure aristocratic types of government from prevailing. Similar to the swing between States' Rights and a strong Central Government.

In giving this structure, they gave the People very strong powers in the House (appropriation bills and the sole power of impeachment) and gave the Senate the balance (proposing amendment to appropriation bills and to try impeachments). The rest of the powers are just enumerated to "Congress"; which we know is both houses.

Further separation of powers is seen in the specific enumerations given to the Executive and also the Judiciary. So in many ways you are right. The constitution itself does not say "separation of powers" but the structure given for our government clearly separates powers and rightly so.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
*sigh

wheres maximus decimus meridius when we need him.

where is the gladiator to slay our senate?

for the love of aqua buddah this better not happen

or for those who loved lord of the rings wheres gandalf slamming his staff into the ground and shouting " you shall not pass".

the facist rise of america continues...............................amerika is dead.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


We don't have any of them.... Shall it continue to rise... Or is ron paul, Gandalf?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dwmjr1985
 




well one could say hes old enough to be

just may be





top topics
 
98
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join