1 edit
Originally posted by sh76The RHP forums show that people are willing to intensively argue about all manner of things, just for the sake of arguing. And if the issue is of any importance to a wide sector of the population, you can bet that there will be an advocacy group willing to spend whatever it takes to provide the best arguments and representation.
The theory behind the case or controversy requirement is that if the party challenging the statute has no suffered an injury, then s/he will not have the incentive to marshal the best arguments and hire the best representation possible.
Federal courts are not allowed to give "advisory opinions." Aside from the reason above, the Constitution specifically set tional interpretation is in dispute. (And, even that, incidentally, was once far from clear.)
This doesn't mean there shouldn't still be some sort of standard to deter frivolous claims. But where there is a major issue about a given law's constitutionality, there should be some way to get the Court to weigh in on it (or to specifically decline to weigh in on it if it so chose).
Take the czar situation. The main role of a czar may be to outline the preferred approach to a given policy, and he/she may play a crucial role in determining the guidelines that the various secretaries issue. The czar's decisions may have a strong impact on many people, but it might be impossible to prove that any particular decision made by the czar caused a particular instance of harm. Surely, there needs to be a way to get the Court to decide whether or not a czar should require confirmation.
Originally posted by Wulebgr===They have no responsibility unless Congress has already authorized an initiative, or unless the exercise powers already inherent in the executive branch.===
This is a non-issue. You're confusing an issue of semantics with one of substance.
Czars are advisers with a clear focus. They have no responsibility unless Congress has already authorized an initiative, or unless the exercise powers already inherent in the executive branch.
Principal executive officers that "exercise powers already inherent in the executive branch" still need Senate confirmation. The Attorney General, for example, exercises "powers already inherent in the executive branch."
You description above, incidentally, describes all executive authority, including that held and wielded by the President himself.
I do not believe I'm "confusing" anything. I also do not think that your airy dismissal of an issue that is being hotly contested by members of Congress as we speak and in the face of the case law I presented in my OP is particularly constructive in this debate.
Originally posted by sh76Given the composition of Congress, the fact that they are debating something does not render it an issue of significance. They chase many illusions, which help divert them from issues of substance. Sometimes their ineffectiveness is our best protection; sometimes it is tragic. In the case of arguments against Obama's czars, it appears to be a ruse of the Right to distract from the moment at hand--real reform of health care.
===They have no responsibility unless Congress has already authorized an initiative, or unless the exercise powers already inherent in the executive branch.===
Principal executive officers that "exercise powers already inherent in the executive branch" still need Senate confirmation. The Attorney General, for example, exercises "powers already inherent in th ...[text shortened]... he face of the case law I presented in my OP is particularly constructive in this debate.
Obama's czars seem to be advisers. It's a word employed for the sorts of expertise needed to run a modern government. These czars do not have authority or responsibility approaching that of cabinet members.
I realize that a lot of folks want to pare the government back to something that Jefferson would have recognized, but not many, if any, advocate starting with the Army Corps of Engineers that manages many of the dams built or authorized during the administration of FDR.
2 edits
If the czars were subject to Senate confirmation, most of them would probably sail through.
Except maybe for a couple cases where the opposition party would manufacture a fuss to gain some brownie points with their base, these czars are generally not important enough to expend much energy on. And it would be easy for the president to replace any nominees who prove to be embarassing enough to create a distraction.
The main impact would be to subject czars to a stronger background check process to weed out anyone who may've done something terrible like calling the opposing party a bunch of ******. The media would then be free to focus entirely on more substantial fare like how the president proposes to handle the Joe Wilson Issue.