The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress ó a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.
Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama..
"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.
The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice.
At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created since he took office. Of those, she says 10 ó the White House says eight ó are in the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or requests for testimony.
Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the government affairs committee, asked the White House to provide a witness for Thursday's hearing but it did not send one.
In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that the White House is not trying to circumvent Congress.
"We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current administration," Mr. Craig wrote.
Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White House "are solely advisory in nature" and have no independent authority.
Senators disagreed with that evaluation, pointing to Mrs. Browner and healthcare czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is Mr. Obama's healthcare adviser.
"We do happen to have a Cabinet officer with Health and Human Services with whom I have never had a conversation on healthcare, not because I have any opposition to her but because it's my perception Nancy-Ann DeParle is calling the shots," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican.
Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck ó who senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be named" ó began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has criticized.
Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.
Legal experts testifying before the Senate panel said Congress needs to be careful not to overreach in reacting. They said options open to lawmakers include writing new laws to restrict advisers' authority or writing the positions into law as needing Senate confirmation. A White House aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are trying to work to accommodate "all reasonable congressional requests for information" and said some White House advisers have given informal briefings to members of Congress in lieu of testimony.
The aide also said some czars are outside the White House itself and they can be called to testify. The aide said five of them have already done so.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, blasted Republicans for raising the issue and said she took offense at their comparisons between Mr. Obama and President Nixon.
She said Congress should instead be looking at the legality of presidential signing statements to shape how laws are implemented ó a tool whose use expanded substantially under President George W. Bush.
Last month, Miss Collins offered an amendment to compel administration officials to testify, but it was ruled not germane to the bill being debated.
Democrats said it went too far because it would have covered all executive branch employees, including the national security adviser and the chief of staff, who have always been recognized as out of bounds.
Miss Collins said the issue shouldn't be so intractable and that Congress and the White House should be able to agree on a list of people who should be able to testify.
For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he's still looking for a good solution.
"We both share a desire to do something about this to help Congress uphold our responsibility for oversight, but we understand the balance here as reflected in the Constitution," he said.
And they said that Bush & Co. were shredding the Constitution. The shredding has been stepped up several notches under Obama, and the "main stream media" is strangly silent on the issue.
> The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of > President > Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress ó a decision senators said > goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and > treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the > administration's actions.
> Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig > told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of > the > czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate > confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of > the > White House would be allowed to come before Congress.
> Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are > actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama..
> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, > Carol > Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the > negotiations > she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant > policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a > hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.
> The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about > separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to > have > advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to > fear > being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, > though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be > able > to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the > president > advice.
> At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created > since > he took office. Of those, she says 10 ó the White House says eight ó are > in > the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act > requests > or requests for testimony.
> Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
> Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the government > affairs committee, asked the White House to provide a witness for > Thursday's > hearing but it did not send one.
> In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that > the > White House is not trying to circumvent Congress.
> "We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could > create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional > oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current > administration," Mr. Craig wrote.
> Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White > House "are solely advisory in nature" and have no independent authority.
> Senators disagreed with that evaluation, pointing to Mrs. Browner and > healthcare czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is Mr. Obama's healthcare adviser.
> "We do happen to have a Cabinet officer with Health and Human Services > with > whom I have never had a conversation on healthcare, not because I have any > opposition to her but because it's my perception Nancy-Ann DeParle is > calling the shots," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican.
> Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck ó who > senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be > named" ó began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama > administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for > months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has > criticized.
> Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins > critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.
> Legal experts testifying before the Senate panel said Congress needs to be > careful not to overreach in reacting. They said options open to lawmakers > include writing new laws to restrict advisers' authority or writing the > positions into law as needing Senate confirmation. A White House aide, > speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are trying to work to > accommodate "all reasonable congressional requests for information" and > said > some White House advisers have given informal briefings to members of > Congress in lieu of testimony.
> The aide also said some czars are outside the White House itself and they > can be called to testify. The aide said five of them have already done so.
> Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, blasted Republicans for raising > the issue and said she took offense at their comparisons between Mr. Obama > and President Nixon.
> She said Congress should instead be looking at the legality of > presidential > signing statements to shape how laws are implemented ó a tool whose use > expanded substantially under President George W. Bush.
> Last month, Miss Collins offered an amendment to compel administration > officials to testify, but it was ruled not germane to the bill being > debated.
> Democrats said it went too far because it would have covered all executive > branch employees, including the national security adviser and the chief of > staff, who have always been recognized as out of bounds.
> Miss Collins said the issue shouldn't be so intractable and that Congress > and the White House should be able to agree on a list of people who should > be able to testify.
> For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he's still looking for a good solution.
> "We both share a desire to do something about this to help Congress uphold > our responsibility for oversight, but we understand the balance here as > reflected in the Constitution," he said.
> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, > Carol > Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the > negotiations > she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant > policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
Leonard wrote: > W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify > ... > Czar is an informal term given to the positions. > ...
Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using the term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.
czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power; an autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
"used to designate certain monarchs"
"designate ... supreme rulers"
"'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
"Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ... with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the terminology they 'informally' adopt... Funny thing is that the term Czar may be more appropriate for these unelected officials than the administration lets on.
>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, >> Carol >> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the >> negotiations >> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant >> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
> Leonard wrote: >> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify >> ... >> Czar is an informal term given to the positions. >> ...
> Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using the > term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.
> czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power; an > autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to > regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
> "used to designate certain monarchs"
> "designate ... supreme rulers"
> "'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
> "Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ... with > a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
> Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the > terminology they 'informally' adopt... Funny thing is that the term Czar > may be more appropriate for these unelected officials than the > administration lets on.
You carry on and on about supreme rulers, right after ignoring def. 3.
There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not there yet.
> >> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, > >> Carol > >> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the > >> negotiations > >> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant > >> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
> > This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
> > Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:58:52 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those >>issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to >>the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not >>there yet.
> Fortunately, we stopped the GOP onslaught of power > acquisition.
> And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of > "casear"
Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?
> > >> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, > > >> Carol > > >> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the > > >> negotiations > > >> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant > > >> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
> > > This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
> > > Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
> > Nor does it have the /authority/.
> "Promote the General Welfare.."-
Oh my...it appears there are still those that are trying to trot out that old carnard(sigh)
-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution": "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
-Alexander Hamilton: "...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..." http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers/fed_83.html
> >-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
> ah, sigh
> The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders) > and then arguing they are required to gauge legal > rulings and precedent against.
Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US Constitution that is the basis for all US law. Court rulings are supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.
"All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the government HAS ONLY ONE DUTY; to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former." (emphasis mine). - Justice Owen J. Roberts
The word "precedent" is neither stated nor implied by FF/framers/state ratifers.
> What Madison "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO > bearing on the constitution after it was > ratified---other than to provide historical "reference" > IF desired
IOW, those like you prefer to make it up as you go along, similar to children losing a game wish to make up new rules as until they get the results they want regardless of the intent of the game. ROTFLMHO
> They contain NO legal requirement to do so.
..and yet Article V of the US Constitution is the legal vehicle, by design, to make changes IF the spirit and intent is desired by the majority of its citizenry.
> "When Moses told the children of Israel that he > received the two tables of the commandments from the > hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, > because they had no other authority for it that his > telling them so."
Now you delve into religion, not US law and its principles. Non sequitur
> "The "commandments" carry no internal evidence of > divinity within them; they carry some good moral > precepts, such as any man qualified to be a law-giver, > or a legislator, could produce himself, without having > to recourse to supernatural intervention"
> Thomas Paine,--------- Founder
...and for ~three millenia said "commandments" have not changed and the majority of its followers continue to aspire to the spirit and intent of its precepts.to this day.
Oh wait! Let me re-phrase for all of YOUR intent and purposes "What (Paine) "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO bearing on the constitution after it was ratified---other than to provide historical "reference" IF desired". ROTFLMHO
>>>-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
>>ah, sigh
>>The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders) >>and then arguing they are required to gauge legal >>rulings and precedent against.
> Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US > Constitution that is the basis for all US law. Court rulings are > supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.
>>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, >>> Carol >>> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the >>> negotiations >>> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant >>> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
>> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
>> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
>Nor does it have the /authority/.
Of course it does. It can regulate interstate commerce, for example.
lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote: >> > Nor does it have the /authority/.
>> "Promote the General Welfare.."-
>Oh my...it appears there are still those that are trying to trot out >that old carnard(sigh)
>-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution": >"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and >are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
The supreme court is the adjudicator of constitutional issues.
But Congress certainly has the power to make claims about the general welfare, about which the courts may adjudicate.
>they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
which is one reason why the first amendment explicitly says otherwise.
>they may appoint teachers >in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public >treasury; >They could they may take into their own hands the education of >children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
Probably. But they would have explicitly justify it as a general welfare decision, and the courts would rule on that justification.
>they may assume the provision of the poor;
The courts seem to have had no problem with welfare.
>they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
the Interstate Highway system.
>in short, every thing, >from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute >object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress....
"could be", but only if it were properly justified and passed court scrutiny.
>Were >the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, >it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature >of the limited Government established by the people of America." >http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
It did. The South lost the civil war
lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote: >On Oct 24, 8:23 pm, L...@alot.com wrote: >> The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders) >> and then arguing they are required to gauge legal >> rulings and precedent against.
>Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US >Constitution that is the basis for all US law.
That makes the false ASSumption that there was a single "spirit and intent". We know from the history, that much of the constitution was compromise based on multiple conflicting spirits and intents.
>Court rulings are supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.
Where does the Constitution or the Judiciary Act state that?
>"All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an >act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not >conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the >government HAS ONLY ONE DUTY; to lay the article of the Constitution >which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide >whether the latter squares with the former." (emphasis mine). - >Justice Owen J. Roberts
No mention of spirit or intent.
>The word "precedent" is neither stated nor implied by FF/framers/state >ratifers.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 which established the courts. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm refers multiple times to "the principles and usages of law" and similar phraseology. "stare decisis" is one such principle of law.
It seems reasonable to consider the Congress of 1789 among the FF.
>> What Madison "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO >> bearing on the constitution after it was >> ratified---other than to provide historical "reference" >> IF desired
>IOW, those like you prefer to make it up as you go along,
from said Judiciary Act. "but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them"
So, subject to the principles and usages of law, decisions are indeed to be "made up as they go along". Note that it does not say "shall appear unto the FF".
lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote: >Leonard wrote: >> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify >> ... >> Czar is an informal term given to the positions. >> ...
>Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using >the term 'Czar' to refer to these people?
It is primarily the media that uses the term "czar". Their actual job titles do not include the term "czar".
>czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power; >an autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to >regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
>"used to designate certain monarchs"
>"designate ... supreme rulers"
>"'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
>"Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ... >with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
You are ignoring definition 3, which is the only one applicable to these people being INFORMALLY called "czars".
>Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the >terminology they 'informally' adopt.
No. The media treats us like children, and incidentally prefers the use of 4 letter words to long-winded job titles because they fit better into headlines.
lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote: > >> > Nor does it have the /authority/.
> >> "Promote the General Welfare.."-
> >Oh my...it appears there are still those that are trying to trot out > >that old carnard(sigh)
> >-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution": > >"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and > >are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
> The supreme court is the adjudicator of constitutional issues.
> But Congress certainly has the power to make claims about the general > welfare, about which the courts may adjudicate.
> >they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
> which is one reason why the first amendment explicitly says otherwise.
> >they may appoint teachers > >in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public > >treasury; > >They could they may take into their own hands the education of > >children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
> Probably. But they would have explicitly justify it as a general > welfare decision, and the courts would rule on that justification.
> >they may assume the provision of the poor;
> The courts seem to have had no problem with welfare.
> >they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
> the Interstate Highway system.
> >in short, every thing, > >from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute > >object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress....
> "could be", but only if it were properly justified and passed court > scrutiny.
How interesting. Once again Mr LeChevalier has (admitted hyprocrisy and) graced this NG with his presence and decided his interpretations, using the post-1936 "got the (FDR) message and suddenly shifted its course" USSC rulings, are better than those of Mr Madison, the acknowledged "father of the US Constitution". Interesting indeed.
> >Were > >the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, > >it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature > >of the limited Government established by the people of America." > >http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
> It did. The South lost the civil war
Apparently Mr LeChevalier, you've decided to supplant the meaning of the words "...limited Government established by the people of America" with *The South lost. Get over it!*, eh?
>>>>There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those >>>>issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, >>>>to >>>>the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're >>>>not >>>>there yet.
>>> Fortunately, we stopped the GOP onslaught of power >>> acquisition.
>>> And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of >>> "casear"
>>Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?
> Thank god the Democratic "onslaught" is geared to > helping ALL Americans---instead of defining "americans" > as the top 10%
Obama is a great president, IF you're a socialist. I'm not.
Jeff Strickland wrote: > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote in message > news:hbv28k$7f1$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> Leonard wrote: >>> W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify >>> ... >>> Czar is an informal term given to the positions. >>> ... >> Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using the >> term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.
>> czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power; an >> autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to >> regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.
>> "used to designate certain monarchs"
>> "designate ... supreme rulers"
>> "'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"
>> "Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ... with >> a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"
>> Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the >> terminology they 'informally' adopt... Funny thing is that the term Czar >> may be more appropriate for these unelected officials than the >> administration lets on.
> You carry on and on about supreme rulers, right after ignoring def. 3.
"Informal. An appointed official having *special powers to regulate or supervise an activity*" (emphasis added) - that's my concern.
> There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those > issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to > the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not > there yet.
I don't want to 'get there' and then worry about how to solve /that/ problem. The terminology is disturbing, /now/.
liberal wrote: > On Oct 24, 10:17 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote: >> Andrew wrote: >>> "Leonard" <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote in message >>> news:C707D9D8.72B9%leonard78sp@primus.ca... >>>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, >>>> Carol >>>> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the >>>> negotiations >>>> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant >>>> policy changes with regard to emissions standards," >>> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution. >>> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards. >> Nor does it have the /authority/.
> "Promote the General Welfare.."
Congress does not have the authority to "Promote the General Welfare..".
Congress has the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;".
What part of "emission standards" provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"*?
*Note: the phrase can NOT be parsed, it must be left intact as that was the intent of the delegated authority.
Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote: >> >Were >> >the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, >> >it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature >> >of the limited Government established by the people of America." >> >http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254
>> It did. The South lost the civil war
>Apparently Mr LeChevalier, you've decided to supplant the meaning of >the words "...limited Government established by the people of America" >with *The South lost. Get over it!*, eh?
The people of America did NOT establish limited government. They established almost unlimited state governments and a very weak and limited central government. When that failed, they established the Constitution with a somewhat stronger central government, and having the principle of Federal supremacy. Then we fought the Civil War, and the result was an even stronger Federal government, and the 14th amendment, which "we the people" established through our elected representatives to weaken the states even further.
lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
>> On Oct 24, 10:17 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution. >>>> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
>>> Nor does it have the /authority/.
>> "Promote the General Welfare.."
> Congress does not have the authority to "Promote the General Welfare..".
> Congress has the power to "provide for the common Defence and general > Welfare of the United States;".
> What part of "emission standards" provides for the "common Defence and > general Welfare of the United States"*?
> *Note: the phrase can NOT be parsed, it must be left intact as that was > the intent of the delegated authority.
You aren't seriously arguing the "and" requires that all spending must provide for defense and welfare at the same time?
The clause also says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect [...] to pay the Debts and provide for". Does this mean Congressional statutes must simultaneously lay/collect, pay debts, and provide?
And the entire of Article 1, Section 8 is a serious of clauses that enumerate Congressional Power, and reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes [...] To borrow Money [...] To regulate Commerce [...] To exercise exclusive Legislation [...] *And* To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper." Does this mean Congressional actions must simultaneously be an exercise of every power enumerated?
Of course not in each case. The "and" in each case separates a list of independent powers.
>> "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, >> Carol >> Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the >> negotiations >> she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant >> policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"
> This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.
> Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.
Quite so. Congress can outlaw the modus operandi of 'czars', the Executive Order, and then send the congressional Sargent-At-Arms to the White House to arrest them all.
|
