WWTBAM Bored

Looks like Byrd doesn't like Chief Executives messin' on turf he thinks is his...whether they're GOP or Dem.

Then again, maybe Robert's going back to his roots...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Some interesting bits in the piece. On the on hand,

...Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

Then they note,

... Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.

Just wondering where 'a stern constitutional scholar' finds anything in the Constitution that gives any branch of the federal government any role whatsoever with respect to health reform, urban affairs policy or energy and climate change. Must be in a part a part of the Constitution we never covered in law school.

Bless my soul, I actually agree with Bobby Byrd...

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

When the President put out all these WH leads for such topics, I put it down to executive inexperience, maybe it really is. These WH leaders seem to be doing the same jobs, mostly, as Cabinet Secretaries, so I thought it would lead to inefficiency and ego-fights.

I never considered the Congressional angle. Power of the purse is a Constitutional check by the Congress upon the Executive Branch with the right to hold hearings/investigations, etc, etc.

This could neatly bypass such 'inconveniences.'

wintergreen48 wrote: Just wondering where 'a stern constitutional scholar' finds anything in the Constitution that gives any branch of the federal government any role whatsoever with respect to health reform, urban affairs policy or energy and climate change. Must be in a part a part of the Constitution we never covered in law school.

You may have gone to law school back in the 1930's when the Supreme Court was having fun tossing out various New Deal laws, but I think the claim that the federal government doesn't have the right to deal with issues that affect the national interest like health care and energy has about as much viability in the 21st century (regardless of who is in office) as the separate but equal doctrine.

Simply put, that dog don't hunt anymore.

silverscreenselect wrote: You may have gone to law school back in the 1930's when the Supreme Court was having fun tossing out various New Deal laws, but I think the claim that the federal government doesn't have the right to deal with issues that affect the national interest like health care and energy has about as much viability in the 21st century (regardless of who is in office) as the separate but equal doctrine.

Simply put, that dog don't hunt anymore.

Why not just institute a state-controlled economy and be done with it. Then in 75 years we can be the leading country of the previous century just like the Soviets! Yay!

i am with Bobby Byrd on this one.

Because from what I see so far, the de facto executive responsbility in these areas will probably in significant amount devolve to the offices inside the WH, which means to personnel who have not had to be vetted and accepted by the Senate, unlike Cabinet Secretaries. And who don't have to face the reality check of working with a permanent bureaucracy that remembers what crappy ideas the last five presidents have had.

I was ready to crack on Byrd for this but I am with Etaoin et al...I believe the consititution, and the current Cabinet structure which is imbedded in same, intends for these positions to be confirmed by the Senate. To do otherwise is to risk doing what Nixon did--sure, I'll appoint Bill Rogers Secretary of State, but this guy named Hank is really running everything from the White House.

You can't have it both ways...at least with a straight face: you can't be a man of the people but avoid letting the people's representatives confirm people with control over national policy. White House Chief of Staff, press secretary...sure, of course...but these Czars have portfolios and should either be confirmed or not exist.