Posted on 09/04/2009 11:50:05 AM PDT by NetRight Nation
"But I'm still USING it!"
Monty Python reference
Well, if the government is going to pay for the maintenance of said organs, shouldn’t they have first dibs?
I’m inclined to agree with you here...
I wonder if Sunstein and Thaler could be Nudged toward lobotomies? They are obviously a danger to others, and quite likely themselves.
LOL. At least you'll have died with a smile on your face.
Yes, but with the czar comes the fetters.
“When we start using the same terms to describe the un-confirmed special advisers with policy portfolios (unconstitutional and illegal) as the people who face senate scrutiny (however thin) and confirmation the issue becomes confused and the heart of the argument is lost.”
Perhaps the argument that officials with absolutely no relation to Congress, either prior to or during their tenure, are a special problem is lost. And certainly, we need to highlight the danger promised by members of the executive branch who operate without the least reference to a Constitutional mandate.
However, on the flip side, it’s not just Czars that operate extra-Constitutionally. We shouldn’t allow ourselves, for the sake of precision, to slide into defending officials that have gotten a nod from Congress and that base their power in some part on federal statutes, just because they’re not technically Czars. Especially since no one’s holding a gun to Congress’ head to insure it sticks to the Constitution, let alone the people Congress in turn hands its repsonsibilities.
There is a wide gap between the law as laid down by Congress or the Courts, and the law in practice, as it’s executed by even such old and venerable offices as Attourney General, let alone the “Green Jobs Czar”. There’s a body of theory known as “legal positivism” appropriate to the subject. Maybe we should come up with a term that anyone who follows its precepts, be they technically “Constitutional” or not. “Czar” is a pretty decent one, since it already has a sour connotation in the public’s ears.
To put it shorter, I guess the main point with me is not whether the executive is a dictionary “Czar” or not. The problem is the pernicious nature of executive power, be it statutory or not. I fear the executive branch more than the legislative and judicial combined, be it under a Republican or Democrat (obviously, since neither party ever does much clearing out, and mostly spend time figuring out how to add to the heap). For those guys spend their time pushing out reams of paper and/or blabbering about arcane interpretational issues. Both leave it to the other branch to bring government to bear on the people.
From my cold dead.... guts? Sick stuff. Respect the animals... give ‘em an attorney, but human bodies belong to the State.
When I get terminated by the death council, I just hope that the add-a-dicktomy (Rush’s term) waiting list is empty!
...you know Mr. Conservative, you do have two kidneys?
...plenty of people Mr. Conservative get along quite well with half a liver.
...two eyes! Some people don't have any!
My daughter-in-law just received a heart transplant which saved her life. We are so grateful to the family who donated the heart. I’m not sure how I feel about this policy, but, I sure appreciate the person and family who donated the heart.
These are different issues to be fought on different tacks.
THe unconstitutional and illegal nature of the unconfirmed advisers with clear policy portfolios can and should be addressed immediately.
Trimming the size and scope of the executive is a longer term fight.
One is immediate, pressing, and tactical in nature, the other is daunting but strategic. I’m not saying we can’t do both at once, but one must establish and focus on the tactical priorities which support strategic objectives.
As for me - I have great fear and unbridled contempt for the appointed for life judges like Sotomayor who think that policy is THEIR job.
I can see that happening and especially to us old folks that are going to be gathered up and herded into the desert. We won’t get any health care approved to sustain our lives but we will, unwillingly, be expected to give up our organs at the demand of the government.
That is different. The person and the family did that out of a loving and caring decision did so willingly...and I am a donor...I do so because I choose to.
And--I think this Sunstein guy gives us a new bumper sticker:
Mr. Obama--keep your NUDGE out of my business!
“The unconstitutional and illegal nature of the unconfirmed advisers with clear policy portfolios can and should be addressed immediately.”
You have more optimism than I on the subject. I’ll grant that tackling Czars is easier than attacking traditional posts. Not infinitely easier, but by a wide margin. However, I don’t see any trend that has them losing steam. We can hope for a wave of negative public opinion routing their sofar unstoppable progress. But that hasn’t worked for the Drug War or the border debate.
Even as I type I realize I suffer the fate of cynical ideologues, who shudder to consider the horrors of the reality. Instead of dealing with the myriad little problems piecemeal (which is the only way to deal with anything, really), I curse the decaying world. Which is kinda like wondering why I should bother making my bed in the morning if I’m going to die eventually.
“As for me - I have great fear and unbridled contempt for the appointed for life judges like Sotomayor who think that policy is THEIR job.”
Imagine the worst example of “legislating from the bench”. School busing, perhaps? Affirmative action? Emminent domain? Who was it that implemented the wacky schemes? Not the judges themselves. It fell to state and federal executive officials, all of whom no doubt went further than the judges, even, could have intended.
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.