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.

 

Congress passed law to end "Advice and consent of the Senate". It now goes to the President

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
Can he sack people to?
so he can now take over goverment totaly with HIS people.

this is a BIG play in the end game.


Was it a BIG play when other Congress' passed similar bills? While JPZ points out a solid point of how Congress has delegated and abdicated much of their authority and responsibility; this isn't one of them.




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I posted a thread about this last week. Nobody cared.www.abovetopsecret.com...

it is a very scary bill indeed, and it should have never passed.

The president can now appoint whoever he wants without approval .

I tried to warn people- but they felt the bill wasnt worth the read- or that it wasnt partisan enough.

THIS..is a scary bill.

..but who cares right?.. lets talk about batman....
edit on 4-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
I posted a thread about this last week. Nobody cared.www.abovetopsecret.com...

it is a very scary bill indeed, and it should have never passed.

The president can now appoint whoever he wants without approval .

I tried to warn people- but they felt the bill wasnt worth the read- or that it wasnt partisan enough.

THIS..is a scary bill.

..but who cares right?.. lets talk about batman....
edit on 4-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)


I wish I would have seen that thread and credit is due to for it, but I ask you this.

Can the president appoint "whoever he wants without approval"? Can you point me to the page/section of the proposed bill where all of Article II, Section 2 is effectively legislated out?

"inferior" officers of the United States don't need conformation and the Constitution allows for Congress to delegate that authority not only to the President, but also to the Courts and to Department Heads. This is what that bills does.

Still, remain diligent and point out any questionable delegations that should remain under the Advice and Consent of the Senate. I would be happy to see them.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good

THIS..is a scary bill.

..but who cares right?.. lets talk about batman...


Maybe that was the whole point of the Batman shooting, to keep our attention diverted while this got passed.

Big incidents like that happen to occur very conveniently when congress is pushing something through that everybody would hate. People would write to their congressman in opposition, if only they were paying attention instead of being distracted by the latest mass killing or media contrived outrage (such as the Chick-Fil-A boondoggle).



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


If you glanced at the bill in the very least- you will notice that each department is amended by stating..(and here is an example of MANY)..

SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO SENATE APPROVAL.

(2) RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR- Section 232(b)(1) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6942(b)(1)) is amended--

(A) by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’;

(B) by striking paragraph (2); and

(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

(3) COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION- Section 9(a) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714g(a)) is amended in the third sentence by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.


This is broad expansion of Presidential powers....

And here is what the Dems dont get... all those positions will still apply when a republican gets back in- so HE can reappoint these positions when COC happens.

Here is the bill- www.govtrack.us...

Official summary-

(sorry its so long- blame the bill)

Section 2 -
Eliminates the requirement of Senate approval (advice and consent) of specified presidentially-appointed positions in federal agencies and departments, as follows: -Department of Agriculture:

(1) Assistant Secretary for Administration,
(2) Administrator of the Rural Utilities Services, and
(3) all members of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation; -Department of Commerce: Chief Scientist, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); -Department of Defense (DOD):
(1) all members of the National Security Education Board, and
(2) Director of the Selective Service System; -Department of Education:
(1) Assistant Secretary for Management, and
(2) Commissioner for Education Statistics; -Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs; -Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
(1) Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness,
(2) Assistant Administrator for Grant Programs, Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA),
(3) Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration,
(4) Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement,
(5) Chief Medical Officer, and
(6) Assistant Secretaries for Health Affairs, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs; -Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs; -Department of Justice (DOJ):
(1) Directors of the Bureaus of Justice Statistics and Justice Assistance,
(2) Director of the National Institute of Justice,
(3) Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
(4) Director of the Office for Victims of Crime; -Department of Labor:
(1) Assistant Secretaries for Administration and Management and for Public Affairs, and
(2) Director of the Women's Bureau; -Department of State: Assistant Secretaries for Public Affairs and for Administration; -Department of Transportation (DOT):
(1) Assistant Secretaries for Budget and Programs and for Administration,
(2) Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and
(3) Administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; -Department of the Treasury:
(1) Assistant Secretaries for Public Affairs and for Management, and
(2) Treasurer of the United States; -Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): Assistant Secretaries for Management, for Human Resources and Administration, for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, and for Operations, Security, and Preparedness; -Appalachian Regional Commission: Alternative Federal Co-Chairman; -Council of Economic Advisers: all members, except the Chairperson; -Corporation for National and Community Service: Managing Director; -National Council on Disability: all members, including the Chairperson; -National Museum and Library Services Boards: all members; -National Science Foundation (NSF): all Board members; -Office of National Drug Control Policy: Deputy Directors; -Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation: Commissioner; -United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Assistant Administrator for Management; -Community Development Financial Institution Fund: Administrator; -Mississippi River Commission: all Commissioners; -National Board for Education Sciences: all members; -National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board: all members; and -Board of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development: all members.
Eliminates the positions of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information and for Public Affairs. Eliminates the requirement of Senate approval of all appointments to and promotions for the Commissioned Officer Corps in the Public Health Service and in NOAA. Provides that removal of the requirement of Senate confirmation of

edit
edit on 4-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I am not arguing that they may be erroneous or even extreme delegations; but the title of the OP makes it sound that they ALL are going to the President and it is an abdication of authority. Regardless that such power is invested in Congress via the Constitution.

As I stated in the beginning, I was still combing through the bill (and inserting/deleting takes time).

Here is how 31.US Code, Section 301(d) currently reads:

(d) The Department has 2 Under Secretaries, an Under Secretary for Enforcement, 2 Deputy Under Secretaries, and a Treasurer of the United States, appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. The Department also has a Fiscal Assistant Secretary appointed by the Secretary.


As amended if this bill passed:

(d) The Department has 2 Under Secretaries, an Under Secretary for Enforcement, and 2 Deputy Under Secretaries, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Department also has a Fiscal Assistant Secretary appointed by the Secretary and a Treasurer of the United States appointed by the President.


While there is a subtle difference, why would "under secretaries" and "deputy under secretaries" be under the advice and consent of the Senate but not the Treasurer of the United States?

This portion of the legislation is what I was speaking of. Still have a ways to go and forgive me if I do not take your sources (it isn't that I think they are not valid, I just do my own research and make up my own mind).

Post Script:

What should be highlighted is that we are hardly a Federal System and an ever growing Bureaucratic System; most of those I care nothing about and having the President or the Department Head appoint them is not a big deal; save a few that should remain under the purview of the Senate.
edit on 5-8-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Common Good

THIS..is a scary bill.

..but who cares right?.. lets talk about batman...


Maybe that was the whole point of the Batman shooting, to keep our attention diverted while this got passed.

Big incidents like that happen to occur very conveniently when congress is pushing something through that everybody would hate. People would write to their congressman in opposition, if only they were paying attention instead of being distracted by the latest mass killing or media contrived outrage (such as the Chick-Fil-A boondoggle).


Yup! And it seems that tactic works really well.

People wait till things get passed and say "oh what the hell is this about"?

Thing is though- its up to the people to find out what bills are about to be passed or voted on so they can counteract, but they dont.
When we do post about important legislative changes, nobody cares. They wait to get beat before they fight back, and by then its too late.

Distractions shouldnt stop people from realizing what their governments are doing behind their back.

But you are right- they do.

Its hard to always blame the politicians when the people do nothing to stop it.

Only 5% of the proposed bills get passed out of over 11,000.
Whos the 5% in this country that always gets what they want?
The rich democrats and republicans who write the legislation.

- not us little people thats for sure.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


"While there is a subtle difference, why would "under secretaries" and "deputy under secretaries" be under the advice and consent of the Senate but not the Treasurer of the United States?

-You got me- the wording is rather "dubious". But it all comes back to one point- they have to be appointed by the big man. The secretaries and all. Treasurer of the United States(from what I am reading) has no power to appoint anyone because he doesnt make the appointments...but the secretary does(but then it has to be ok'd by the president. Thats how I interpret it anyways(Im no lawyer) so I could be wrong about THAT part because of the wording. Its weird thats for sure. Motives are my best guess.

- I will have to disagree with the last sentence you made -"the President or the Department Head appoint them is not a big deal; save a few that should remain under the purview of the Senate."

The president can put anyone in that he wants that can influence or further his agenda in whatever area he wants to as long as he has "his people" in these positions.

Thats why I believe this bill is evil- and a massive grab at power and influence.

BTW- Thank you for making me check more into this. :up

Edit- cause batman messed me up
edit on 5-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
- I will have to disagree with the last sentence you made -"the President or the Department Head appoint them is not a big deal; save a few that should remain under the purview of the Senate."


Should my position (as I stated, I fall under the Executive), being inferior, be under the purview of the Senate? Mind you I cannot make high level policy changes, though I can certainly have an effect.


Thats why I believe this bill is evil- and a massive grab at power and influence.

BTW- Thank you for making me check more into this.


Sadly, the positions removed from the purview of the Senate for Advice and Consent were not power grabs, but freely given by the "will of People". I say that because all of the legislature is "popular". If the States were still the power brokers of the Senate (as was before the 17th Amendment) than such moves would require much more support and much more debate or not even a possibility at all.

Expedience is the winner today and that isn't a good thing.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


"Should my position (as I stated, I fall under the Executive), being inferior, be under the purview of the Senate? Mind you I cannot make high level policy changes, though I can certainly have an effect.

Sadly, the positions removed from the purview of the Senate for Advice and Consent were not power grabs, but freely given by the "will of People". I say that because all of the legislature is "popular". If the States were still the power brokers of the Senate (as was before the 17th Amendment) than such moves would require much more support and much more debate or not even a possibility at all.

Expedience is the winner today and that isn't a good thing. "


Im sorry you are right- they werent 'power grabs'- the people did nothing to stop it. And it was no doubt Not the will of the people, but the IGNORANCE of the people.

It definately is not a good thing. well- it is for the president.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
Can he sack people to?
so he can now take over goverment totaly with HIS people.

this is a BIG play in the end game.

Just like a Rabbit in the road!
edit on 4-8-2012 by buddha because: (no reason given)

yeah.. Thats kinda the problem, huh?

Funny how so many are fixated on this specific name or that one...when the President just gained enormous power in one shot, for the overall game. Yikes...

Oh well.. At least some of us are seeing the pieces falling into place. It's scary how many don't, eh?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Your outrage is misplaced.

Please recall that the Constitution says (and I copy this extract from the source that YOU quote):



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.


Please notice the portion that I put in bold, and especially the part that I underlined. In the past, Congress has "thought it proper" to review a broader range of Presidential appointments than the this bill provides. Congress view of what it needs to spend its time on has changed.

Congress cannot pass a law to subvert the Constitution in the way you fear. Especially not THIS Congress whose only interest is not doing anything productive for the country. That this bill actually got up is nothing short of amazing in the current environment, what with all the Presidential appointments they are sitting on out of sheer spitefulness.

As someone interested in the preservation of the Constitution as I am sure you are, you should understand this instinctively and should be able to notice when blog writers are being overly alarmist. The charge is ludicrous.
edit on 5/8/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


You should have highlighted this part
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,"

..because that superceeds what is written prior. NOW they have NO CHOICE, because their consent is NOW irrelevent.

it is alarming- and once he gets whoever he wants in these positions- there is no telling what doors this can open when it comes to influencial power in/of certain departments.

You will freak out once the other guy you dont like is in control.
Im freaking now cause this can cause more harm than good, and Im growing more concerned with the two parties interests everyday.

How can this bill being passed NOT be a bad thing? It certainly is. People just dont understand it nor care to.

Not only that- calling it "streamlining efficiency"- is just Misrepresenting of what the bill really is.

Edit- =)


edit on 5-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I wish I had a better understanding of politics, I try because I feel I need to understand, but at the same time it's often like looking at a foreign language!

I was reading the bill and the specific offices that it lets the president appoint. A majority of them apply to Assistant Secretary positions, and some under the Department of Homeland Security are Directors' positions. Can someone tell me... am I correct that if something happens that the Secretary is unable to serve, then the Assistant Secretary is next in line?

This whole thing makes me squeamish because it does seem like a subtle (sneaky?) power play. It makes me think of little tentacles coursing through every aspect of the government. The president will have a person of his choosing in pretty much all the important offices. His personal insider.

While I understand that they (senate) have the right to delegate responsibility (as someone else said) it seems like this *could* be one that just shouldn't have been delegated.

*disclaimer: this opinion comes from someone with mildly paranoid ideas and little knowledge of politics, so take with a grain of salt!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I would have cared.
I stopped coming to ATS until all the Batman talk died down. Like another poster mentioned, maybe that was the point of batman. Starring your other thread because, well, you posted first!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Do not get overly alarmed. Everyone in Washington DC has your best interests in mind. They know what is best and they have the votes to prove it. "Nothing to see here. Move along please." - Lt. Frank Drebin



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
This would seem to indicate that they all know these positions are going to be filled by corporate insiders, why even bother to question the outright conflict of interest of allowing them to "regulate" the very corporations they "truely" work for......


Sure they are willing to wash thier hands of this shame, they don't want to explain to the people back in thier districts why a Monsanto insider is overseeing policy on food regulation.....etc., etc.....



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Sure, a lot of the positions are minor under-secretaries and such but there's one big one in there that worries me:


(2) TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 301(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking ‘2 Deputy Under Secretaries, and a Treasurer of the United States’ and inserting ‘and 2 Deputy Under Secretaries’, and

(B) by inserting ‘and a Treasurer of the United States appointed by the President’ after ‘Fiscal Assistant Secretary appointed by the Secretary’.

S.679

You mean to tell me they just happened to let the Treasurer slip through with all of those other minor appointments?

I smell a rat here.



Rosie Rios serves as the 43rd Treasurer of the United States. She has direct oversight over the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and FortKnox and is a key liaison with the Federal Reserve. In addition, the Treasurer serves as a senior advisor to the Secretary in the areas of community development and public engagement. She is especially passionate about supporting Women in Finance and issues of Main Street in the economic recovery.

Prior to her confirmation as Treasurer, Rios worked at MacFarlane Partners, where she was Managing Director of Investments. Working with MacFarlane Partners’ development and global capital partners, Rios played a central role in facilitating equity transactions for large mixed-use development projects in major urban areas.

US Dept of Treasury




edit on 8/5/12 by FortAnthem because:
_________



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


If they can do this then they no longer deserve our respect. Taxes. Or our acceptance .

And they wonder why we are looking at our options to hang them all. So we have no separation of powers. No checks and balances. Where are our defenders of our country?

Not doing their jobs is where. I wish someone in command would step up and defend the constitution they swore to protect. What do you think that means? This is exactly the sort of domestic threat you need to stop.


Now is the time to choose sides.

They have chosen theirs. They changed teams. They are now enemies of state.


edit on 5-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Thanks for highlighting that. I'm avoiding the name by name debate because it'll get drawn into person by person details and will swamp the main point in all that. That would be one of a couple that stopped my reading eye, right there.

But, we're supposed to see this as routine housekeeping or just giving those Senators a break from all that work. Nothing really changes, right?


You know, there is something else people aren't mentioning here. If the full staffs of 100 Senators still miss major things in people's backgrounds on appointments from time to time, and they do, just what staff in the White House is suppose to give us confidence as doing a better job? I don't even see the manpower and resources to give it a good college try, honestly. This is a Senate responsibility for many reasons....

edit on 5-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join