Posted on 11/12/2018 11:44:50 PM PST by Revel
You are probably right. I was doing some Monday morning pot stirring...
The fags of Maryland want the communist gay guy runnin’ the joint in the District of Corruption.
More of the civil war that only one side is fighting. They attack the very legitimacy of the President. They who make up or ignore law as it serves them to do.
Maryland is buttressing its argument. The state contends that Whitaker was unlawfully named acting attorney general, and so he has no authority to respond to their lawsuit.
That state must be run by complete idiots.
Congress passing a law specifying how the Executive acts is the ultimate Constitutional advice and consent.
And note that Pelosi and Schumer both voted for the Vacancies Act.
Light-loafered Brian is just doing this as a virtue signal to all the twinkies who voted for him. The only way Maryland gets rid of this D infrastructure is a Near Mass Extinction Event.
Honest question just what are they claiming is unlawful about the appointment?
Maryland’s leftist freak attorney general doesn’t care one whit about legality. He only cares about the utter destruction of everything Donald Trump does.
What’s worse, the corrupt, leftist, freak General Asylum, er, Assembly in Annapolis voted overwhelmingly to create a law granting the leftist freak attorney general the unfettered right to engage in any and every legal action against the Trump administration without any permission, denial or input from the Governor. (who happens to be a centrist Republican)
Good for you Maryland, now sit down and STFU.
Boy, that's a stretch.
Can Trump declare the reciprocal to be the case?
Can he say he doesn't like the governor of a state and name his own preference?
Rural Florida to raise beef cattle on a farm.
Politics is not a big subject out here in the country.
It's like all of this I read in the news is happening in a different universe.
Because I don't feel much effect from what the crooks in DC or Tallahassee are doing.
Running cows doesn't require politics. It's the way I like it.
I agree with you, but the courts will not. The ability of Congress to grant its permission for things wholesale by statute, instead of doing it on a case by case basis, is firmly “settled law,” as far as the US Federal courts are concerned. To overturn that precedent would disestablish the “administrative state” in its entirety. The Powers That Should Not Be know that. So it will not happen. Too bad, too sad.
There was a 7-2 decision in that case that suggests otherwise. Thomas' concurring opinion was the only one that directly addressed the constitutionality of the Vacancies Act, so it wasn't a critical element of the overall decision in the NLRB case.
Ping!
Absolutely not. If Congress passes a law that says the President can only appoint Federal judges on the last Tuesday of March, July and November, is this constitutional?
And note that Pelosi and Schumer both voted for the Vacancies Act.
That's not a compelling argument. In fact, I'd say that's a pretty strong argument that the Vacancies Act is 100% unconstitutional. LOL.
if you the only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Non sequitur argument. Prohibiting Constitutionally defined actions is fundamentally different than extending conditional permissions.
Most of what the Feds do is actually unconstitutional. This action isn’t any pattern for reversing that.
True. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act, for example, has never been firmly established. Same with all of these military campaigns all over the world that the U.S. has undertaken without any formal declaration of war.
When it comes to the importance of constitutional government, is this really the stance we should take here on FR?
No, it does not.
It says and I quote, "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.
They "thought it proper" and so enacted that Federal Statute.
By that statute they GAVE both "advice and consent" in a limited manner.
That particular item hinges entirely on the legal definition of an "inferior Officer." There have been a number of legal cases about this exact point, and there's no way the U.S. Attorney General would fit the definition of an "inferior officer" by any objective measure.
The two main parameters used by the U.S. Supreme Court in defining an "inferior" vs. "non-inferior" (the term "principal officer" is usually used in these legal cases) officer are:
1. A "principal officer" is one who reports to the President alone, and not through someone else. This means the Secretary of Transportation is a "principal officer," while the Federal Highway Administrator (who reports to the Secretary of Transportation) is an "inferior officer."
2. A "principal officer" is one who carries out functions that have been assigned to the office through a Federal statute. If Congress passes a law, for example, that says: "The Secretary of Transportation shall sign off on every Federal highway grant awarded by the USDOT," then the Secretary of Transportation is a principal officer. If, on the other hand, the authority for signing off on every Federal highway grant awarded by the USDOT is given to the FHWA director under internal USDOT regulations and not by statute, then the FHWA director is an "inferior officer."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.