Article

2011-04-16 Home Front: Politix

Obama issues "signing statement" rejecting budget cuts to White House "czars"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Beavis 2011-04-16 09:10|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities..

While it is true, it also doesn't imply 'paid' advice. Many Presidents have had advisers that were not on the payrolls, often referred to as the 'kitchen cabinet'. The purse strings, however, are always those of the legislative branch. If they say no pay, then constitutionally, it's no pay. That's the basis for cutting off operations of the military or any other department. It also becomes the basis for removal from office if ignored.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-04-16 10:04|| 2011-04-16 10:04|| Front Page Top

#2 Impeach Obama, 2011. If Congress doesn't, they will become totally impotent, and we will be ruled by a dictator.

Posted by Old Patriot 2011-04-16 13:03|| 2011-04-16 13:03|| Front Page Top

#3 Oddly enough, I do not believe it is presidentially impeachable, for the reason that it has been coming on since Marbury v. Madison (1810), when the SCOTUS ordered the POTUS to comply, and he refused. Even from the founding of the republic, there were concerns about an "imperial presidency". It is a broader issue than can be dealt with by just impeachment.

However, that being said, though it has only been done once (William W. Belknap (Secretary of War)), cabinet officers can be impeached. And while the assumption *was* that this only applied to senate approved cabinet officers; since the president has sought to evade this advice and consent, there is no reason to think that congress cannot impeach Czars.

The House has initiated impeachment proceedings, mostly against federal judges, some 64 times. Easy because it requires just a simple majority vote. The hard part is conviction by the Senate, as it needs a 2/3rds majority vote, or 67 senators in agreement.

Even if the Republican won the Senate vote big time in 2012, the best estimates are that it could only get 60 senators.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-04-16 15:52|| 2011-04-16 15:52|| Front Page Top

23:57 OldSpook
23:54 OldSpook
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:53 OldSpook
23:20 Jock the Salmon
23:13 European Conservative
22:40 Frank G
22:38 European Conservative
22:34 Richard Aubrey
22:30 European Conservative
22:20 OldSpook
22:20 OldSpook
22:18 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:45 Pollyandrew
20:55 Dale
20:51 Dale
20:51 Barbara Skolaut
20:41 Dale
20:37 Zebulon Thranter9685
20:23 Frank G
20:15 Glenmore
19:24 Ebbeanter Smith3333
19:24 Sgt. Mom
19:22 Zebulon Thranter9685