Friday, September 19, 2008

Learn the Constitution

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com



In last night's Newswatch, Gabe wrote about McCain saying he wanted to fire the SEC Chair Chris Cox.

Now, if you'd taken out your Constitution on Wednesday for Constitution Day, and reviewed that "separation of powers" thing, you'd know that no U.S. President can fire the head of an agency. It doesn't work that way. The President makes the nomination, the Congress confirms, and only in the case of gross malfeasance can there be a removal process. "Firing" by the President is not an option. FDR learned this back in the 30's, when his desire to remove a Commission head went to the Supreme Court.




UPDATE - OOPS - another error on my part. I thought John said "SEC" (which would have been correct) but he actually said "FEC" which is not.

Posted by DocJess at 10:40 AM

Labels:

Comments (4)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
Loading...
+2 Vote up Vote down
tmess2's avatar - Go to profile

tmess2 70p · 860 weeks ago

Actually, this is one error that I have seen repeated over the last 24 hours. It's not the Constitution that prevents the firing. What prevents the firing is the statute creating the SEC. That statute gives the Commissioners a set term of office which makes them different from other presidential appointees like Ambassadors or Cabinet secretaries who serve at the President's will.

The Constitutional history is that for a period it was unclear whether statutes that protected these independent agencies from having their heads fired by the President were constitutional. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did decide to uphold these statutes.
Reply
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
DocJess's avatar - Go to profile

DocJess 71p · 860 weeks ago

Scroll down to the Humphrey case -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag28...that's what I think makes it constitutional in nature.....although in the final analysis what matters is that a president CAN'T fire him....
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
tmess2's avatar - Go to profile

tmess2 70p · 860 weeks ago

While it's quibbling over a legal technicality, I think the point of the Humphrey case is that Congress by statute can create positions who serve for terms rather than at the will of the President. The Constitutional issue is the power of Congress to create the position. The actual fact that a particular position is for a term or at the President's will is the statutory issue. There is no provision of the Constitution that says that this particular position (other than judges) are for a term.
Reply
0 Vote up Vote down
oliver.bassett's avatar

oliver.bassett · 860 weeks ago

I'm not sure of the context, but it appears that at some point yesterday he called for the FEC chair to resign. It seems he was trying to walk back his earlier comments. Or was he?
Reply

Comments by

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)