Saturday, March 24, 2007
Grow some ....
cojones, heuvos, hoden, onions, eggs, lemons, bollocks, balls, 'nads, giggleberries ...
When is the Republican Party, and this Administration, in particular, going to grow a pair?
I am speaking, specifically, about the "scandal" over the firing of 8 federal prosecutors last year.
Let's look at a few things.
Federal Prosecutors are employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal government. They are appointed by the President, thanks to the law that governs that process.
The specific part of the Constitution that covers their hiring and firing is Article 2, Section 2. The pertinent part reads:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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.
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.
The "He" in question in this is the President. Article II of the Constitution covers the powers and responsibilities of the President.
This is the definition of the phrase serving "at the pleasure of the President".
Read this next bit carefully.
It is the DUTY of the President to hire and fire Federal Prosecutors as he sees fit. According to the Constitution ... the highest law in our country, the Senate can only approve the President's choices ... they have "veto" power over his choices for hiring.
No part of Congress has a say in firing. No part of Congress has a say in the choices that the President submits to the Senate for approval.
This is not some new thing. It is part of the original Constitution from 1789. Not part of some Amendment.
The Bush Administration fired 8 Federal prosecutors last year. The first change in the roster of Federal Prosecutors since 1993. (For those of you not up on your history, that would be the early days of the Clinton Administration, but we will come back to that.)
There is nothing in US law, Constitutional or otherwise, that gives any criteria for the firing of Federal Prosecutors. That is COMPLETELY left to the discretion of the person filling that office of President. The President can fire Federal Prosecutors for any, or no reason at all. Congress has no say in that. It's called "Separation of Powers" ... another concept that dates back to the original writing of the Constitution.
Case in point (this would be the "we will come back to that" part): in 1993, shortly after his Inauguration, President Clinton fired all of the 93 Federal Prosecutors that were in office. (That's right, there are 93 Federal Prosecutors. So, this firing of 8 was not some "sweeping out" of Federal Prosecutors. ) The only reason given was, basically, that all 93 were either Reagan or Bush (the First) appointees, and the Clinton Administration wanted people in office that were friendly to them. This was the first time in HISTORY that a President had fired EVERY Federal Prosecutor.
The Bush Administration came to office in 2001, and, until late last year, did not replace a single Federal Prosecutor. Then, after an exhaustive process, decided to replace 8 of the 93. (BTW, Patrick Fitzgerald of the Scooter Libby trial is one of the 93, and he is not one of the Prosecutors being fired.)
Actually, it's not a "Republican" or "Democratic" thing.
Every Presidential hopeful (McCain, Obama, Hillary, Brownbeck, Giuliani, et al.) should be screaming at this attempted incursion into the Constitutionally granted powers given the office that they seek.
This is not an attack on the current President. It is an attack on the powers of the office. If it works now, for one party, it will work the same way for the other party, someday, when the Democrats are in power.
I would suggest, no matter your political persuasion, you look up the phrase: "Hoist by your own petard."
When is the Republican Party, and this Administration, in particular, going to grow a pair?
I am speaking, specifically, about the "scandal" over the firing of 8 federal prosecutors last year.
Let's look at a few things.
Federal Prosecutors are employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal government. They are appointed by the President, thanks to the law that governs that process.
The specific part of the Constitution that covers their hiring and firing is Article 2, Section 2. The pertinent part reads:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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.
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.
The "He" in question in this is the President. Article II of the Constitution covers the powers and responsibilities of the President.
This is the definition of the phrase serving "at the pleasure of the President".
Read this next bit carefully.
It is the DUTY of the President to hire and fire Federal Prosecutors as he sees fit. According to the Constitution ... the highest law in our country, the Senate can only approve the President's choices ... they have "veto" power over his choices for hiring.
No part of Congress has a say in firing. No part of Congress has a say in the choices that the President submits to the Senate for approval.
This is not some new thing. It is part of the original Constitution from 1789. Not part of some Amendment.
The Bush Administration fired 8 Federal prosecutors last year. The first change in the roster of Federal Prosecutors since 1993. (For those of you not up on your history, that would be the early days of the Clinton Administration, but we will come back to that.)
There is nothing in US law, Constitutional or otherwise, that gives any criteria for the firing of Federal Prosecutors. That is COMPLETELY left to the discretion of the person filling that office of President. The President can fire Federal Prosecutors for any, or no reason at all. Congress has no say in that. It's called "Separation of Powers" ... another concept that dates back to the original writing of the Constitution.
Case in point (this would be the "we will come back to that" part): in 1993, shortly after his Inauguration, President Clinton fired all of the 93 Federal Prosecutors that were in office. (That's right, there are 93 Federal Prosecutors. So, this firing of 8 was not some "sweeping out" of Federal Prosecutors. ) The only reason given was, basically, that all 93 were either Reagan or Bush (the First) appointees, and the Clinton Administration wanted people in office that were friendly to them. This was the first time in HISTORY that a President had fired EVERY Federal Prosecutor.
The Bush Administration came to office in 2001, and, until late last year, did not replace a single Federal Prosecutor. Then, after an exhaustive process, decided to replace 8 of the 93. (BTW, Patrick Fitzgerald of the Scooter Libby trial is one of the 93, and he is not one of the Prosecutors being fired.)
Actually, it's not a "Republican" or "Democratic" thing.
Every Presidential hopeful (McCain, Obama, Hillary, Brownbeck, Giuliani, et al.) should be screaming at this attempted incursion into the Constitutionally granted powers given the office that they seek.
This is not an attack on the current President. It is an attack on the powers of the office. If it works now, for one party, it will work the same way for the other party, someday, when the Democrats are in power.
I would suggest, no matter your political persuasion, you look up the phrase: "Hoist by your own petard."
