18 thoughts on “A Tale Of Two Constitutions”

    1. Simple: Barky denies that there is such a thing as a “First Amendment” with an actual meaning, therefore he is not entitled to receive its benefits. Your flirtation with Veuillotism is over.

    1. Perhaps the idiot thinks Obama will hire the Czars out of his own pocket. Still not sure if that’s free speech, unless the Czars have no other authority than to write policy and hope that Congress passes the policies into law.

    2. I assume Thomas is arguing that the 1st amendment has to do with this: “”I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,”

      Whether it is the 1st amendment that applies or not, it seems unlikely that Congress can restrict the President from recommending things to Congress. And Congress shouldn’t, except perhaps in the most bizarre of examples.

      As for the matter of hiring advisors, couldn’t the chief executive can’t simply hire people as “Advisor to the President” if Congress objects to calling the advisor a “director of the White House Office of Health Reform”. Do you want Congress to pick and choose the President’s advisors?

      2. I assume Thomas is arguing that the 1st amendment has to do with this: ”I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,”

        That isn’t the issue.

        As for the matter of hiring advisors, couldn’t the chief executive can’t simply hire people as “Advisor to the President” if Congress objects to calling the advisor a “director of the White House Office of Health Reform”.

        An “advisor” is not a “czar,” and has no authority. The president can hire whoever he wants to advise him, within the White House budget. The Congress is not obliged to provide him with whatever budget he wants.

        2. Rand,

          [[[An “advisor” is not a “czar,” and has no authority. The president can hire whoever he wants to advise him, within the White House budget.]]]

          Sorry, Czars ARE advisers as noted below:

          http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Czar.htm

          [[[Definition: In contemporary American politics, a czar is any top-level presidential appointee who does not have to face confirmation by the US Senate, but whose policy decisions have a significant impact on how the administration occupying the White House charts its national course. Very often, presidential “czars” continue to hold positions in well-established organizations. They are elevated to the position of “czar” however, when they are named by the president to be a part of his inner circle of advisers. ]]]

          So the Czars you rant against have NO power other then the President choosing to listen to their advice and act on it. Czar is simply a term the press uses to denote the force of the opinions of these advisers, who are assigned certain areas to be expert in, have on the decisions of the President. But they are still advisers.

          1. I did but since its unclear to you I will make it clearer. The President should not have to pay his advisers out of his own pocket just because Congress doesn’t get to approve them. This is nothing more then a Congressional attempt to grab power and limit the President’s rights to have who he wants as advisers, just as Newt Gingrich’s proposal to arrest Supreme Court Justices who make decisions he doesn’t agree with.

          2. The President should not have to pay his advisers out of his own pocket just because Congress doesn’t get to approve them.

            That’s not very clear. The US Constitution is very clear on the subject. In fact, there are two statements on the subject:

            First: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

            This clearly states that unless a law appropriates the money, no one can take it from the Treasury to spend it however they choose. In this particular case, the Congress said the President was not allowed his budgetary request to hire additional advisors. This is an authority the Congress has maintained since the ratification of the US Constitution.

            Second: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

            Again the US Constitution is clear that no person can hold an Office of Profit without the Consent of Congress. Earlier I noted the President could pay for advisors out of his own pocket, so long as they held no authority, which deals with the “Office of Trust” issue. In the case presented by the credentialed academic from Nevada, the President clearly must have Congressional approval if he plans to pay for the advisors from the US Treasury.

            And for those who still can’t grasp the concept after a simple reading of the US Constitution; if the President could pay for any number of advisors from the US Treasury without Consent of Congress; then the President could place his entire re-election staff under the funding of taxpayers. Such isn’t exactly a Totalitarian Dictatorship, but it is often a common trait of Totalitarian Dictators.

    3. Rand,

      I guess you didn’t read the article that David Hardy linked to. From the article.

      http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill

      [[[“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.]]]

      So the President is no longer allowed to exercise his freedom of speech when making recommendations to Congress? That he is no longer allowed to advocate to Congress ideas he believes in?

        1. Rand,

          Good! I am glad you agree that Congress went too far in attempting to muzzle the President on issues he believes he should speak out on.

  4. This is the problem with rules, including our constitution. They really have no power when decent people cower.

    Obama knows he can make indecent use of his power and get away with it. What he says doesn’t matter except as a means of seeing into his soul.

    If the American people ever look down all they will see is the abyss. We left a solid foundation decades ago.

Comments are closed.