Posted on 03/20/2007 9:35:16 AM PDT by sonsofliberty2000
Developing...
This has nothing to do with firing. It's about filling the vacancy afterwards.
Yep. It seems like if GW gave them a reason by firing 8 US attorneys, then Clinton surely gave them a bigger reason by firing all of the US Attorneys on his first day of office. Yet you never hear about that.
The real problem is that the GOP let them get away with it when Clinton was President by playing by the rules, while the Dems are intent upon destroying the constitutional balance of powers in order to implement their own agenda.
By restoring the system that existed from 1789 until 2006? I don't think so.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your statement in post 10. This is a Dem "Get Bush" attack. And the Senate has the right to approve appointments just as Bush has the right to fire them.
Because the Patriot Act undid it.
Until the Patriot Act, the Senate always had right of approval.
The "doofus's" are just returning to the status quo of 217 years.
Stop the Madness!
This is not "taking power away from the president" or an "invasion of power". This law would revert the situation back to the way it was for 200+ years, before the Patriot Act II was passed a couple years ago.
Moreover, the White House has already agreed with the senate leadership that they would not continue to take advantage of the Patriot Act II provision that allows them to make such appointments, so there is agreement across the board that the senate should have its traditional role in approving these appointments. This is a total non-issue, with 0% chance of a Bush veto.
The vote was 94-2.
U.S. Attorneys are employees of the Justice Department. This is laughably unconstitutional.
About as much of a chance for me to be vacationing on Mars next month.
It is not. See the law in post 33 and comments in post 48.
Yes we will, and Bush will sit idly by while another special prosecutor is named to trump up charges based on FBI interview trickery, as with Libby. This time it will be with the emails, which Bush so stupidly permitted to be released. Here's how it will proceed:
FBI Agent: "What did you post on FreeRepublic on March 16, 2003"
DoJ Aide: "I think it was probably about Hillary's pantsuit"
FBI Agent: "No, it was about John Kerry dressed like a bunny."
DoJ Aide: "I don't recall"
Prosecutor: "Indictment: Obstruction of Justice. Conspiracy. Get him to not remember before Grand Jury and we can add Perjury"
This is the special hell reserved for the unfortunate employees of George W. Bush.
The Patriot Act superceded that statute.
What does the law they passed actually say?
From the posts, it seems that what the Patriot Act says is that the President has the power to appoint when the Senate is not in session. If that's what they are repealing, then they are infringing upon the President's Constitutional power.
The Constitution says:
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
I know even pombo lost because of that apathy, much to the pleasure of the greenies
Yes. That had been in affect since 1789. They are restoring the rule of law passed in 1789.
I think you're right. I don't think it will pass the constitutionality test. Seems like this proposed law would impinge on executive branch authority.
so is the Legislative branch trying to run the Judicial branch of goverment?
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.