|
Post by avordvet on Aug 7, 2012 16:00:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wyomingmatt on Aug 7, 2012 23:59:01 GMT -5
Everybody that is on this forum knows that we just got f@#ked, but we are the III%. How do we get the sheeple, the other 97%, to realize that they just got bent over?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Aug 8, 2012 0:29:16 GMT -5
Sadly, this looks to be much todo about nothing: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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." This is essentially what they have done. Looking through the list of those which are no longer subject to Senate approval, it sure looks like a whole host of "inferior Officers" etc. There are plenty of infringements upon the Constitution going on in D.C., but I am not seeing this as one of them. I will agree whole heartedly with this comment from the linked article: "Alternatively, however, the Congress could eliminate the problem altogether by reducing the size of the bureaucracy by absolutely refusing to sign off on the creation or continuation of any department, program, or agency that isn’t specifically authorized by the powers granted by the states to the federal government in the Constitution. Such a commitment to be bound by the Constitution would significantly reduce the number of executive branch offices for which appointments would be necessary, thereby dissolving the confirmation clog." But, the support of the People and Congress is not there for this action yet. Here is a link to a previous discussion on this subject, on this forum: alarmandmuster.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=11128
|
|
|
Post by midnightrider on Aug 8, 2012 6:48:10 GMT -5
Dismantling the Constitution, One Article at a Time
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Aug 8, 2012 7:25:29 GMT -5
One of the maxims of law states: "a law that is unlawful is not enforceable" Since this is an ACT (act to amend) it can only be used in cases where the appointee is for the "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA". Thus when they try to use it in conflict with the Constitutional appointments described in the Constitution it can be run through the Courts. Problem is that most of the Agencies covered are not Constitutionally recognized offices. Thus they in reality have no jurisdiction outside the 10 square miles of Washington DC. They are given those jurisdiction by their own regulations and state acceptance for grants.
|
|