This just in: the Constitution is optional

[Richard]

A few thoughts on the 'business' of government:

• The POTUS - Like any corporate CEO - has the authority to reorganize within limits established by the Board of Directors, the operating charter of the company, and existing law (Congress, US Constitution, and US Code in this instance).
  
• The Board and stockholders (Congress and citizenry) have an obligation to either support or - when necessary - challenge the necessity, operational and cost effectiveness of such actions by the CEO and bring action to either change or stop it.
  
• Generally speaking, a bloated, top-heavy corporate structure is historically more costly and less effective - and business school courses and books (such as Good to Great) offer case after case examples of this well known maxim.
  
• The term 'Czar' for an executive position answerable to the CEO* within our federal government's burgeoning bureaucratic structure was coined in 1988 for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by then Senator Joe Biden who was a zealous champion of the War on Drugs and its laws.**

FWIW - I never liked the term Czar for all the historical connotations associated with the word and its antithesis of what the US Constitution stands for among the world's governmental charters.

Richard's $.02

*List is here - http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/
** http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...last_drug_czar

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by Richard

The Constitution of the US of A - Article 2 - Section 2





...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 problem with this with regard to the "czars" is the first sentence. The "czars" are not being appointed with the "advice and consent of the senate." They are merely being appointed by the President as "Special Advisers" in an extra-constitutional manner. And thats why even members of his own party in the Senate are raising concerns about the "Czars".

The real problem is, is that Barrack Obama is the least experienced person to hold the job of POTUS in the modern age. He is the first person elected directly from the Senate since JFK, and although JFK lacked executive experience as a Governor, he had some fairly significant and exceptional executive experience leading men in battle in WW2. Obama does not have that Gubernatorial executive experience that most Presidential candidates have, or military experience, or even executive experience in the private sector. If anything, the governmental position he is most qualified for, given his years teaching Constitutional law is in the Federal Judiciary, although I think his CV is a little light even for that at the highest levels.

So he brings few skills and little experience in the areas a Chief Executive would normally have at least an ancillary familiarity with. But he is a pretty smart guy. Smart enough to know he doesn't know what he's doing on certain issues so he's surrounding himself with other smart people who do have experience with the subjects where he's lacking. The big danger in this is that when one turns over the reins to somebody else to "advise" them on issues they have little experience with, they put a great deal of power in those people. It can be difficult to know if the advice they are getting is correct and prudent, since the receiver has no frame of context to challenge it. This over-reliance on others who are not screened or accountable to the American people is not a desirable attribute of a presidential administration.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

[*]The term 'Czar' for an executive position answerable to the CEO* within our federal government's burgeoning bureaucratic structure was coined in 1988 for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by then Senator Joe Biden who was a zealous champion of the War on Drugs and its laws.

Perhaps this cuts to the heart of the problem.

Does the Czar arrangement work? Is it more effective than the system it supplants?

My impression is that the arrangement hasn't done much good. But perhaps others have more or better information?

[Richard]

The problem with this with regard to the "czars" is the first sentence. The "czars" are not being appointed with the "advice and consent of the senate." They are merely being appointed by the President as "Special Advisers" in an extra-constitutional manner. And thats why even members of his own party in the Senate are now starting to raise concerns about the "Czars".

Yes they are - de jure - but you've got to read the entire paragraph -

...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.

FDR got Congress to approve the Reorganization Act of 1939 which created the Executive Office of the President (EOP), reporting directly to the President. From 1939 through the present, the situation has changed continually and new units within the EOP have been created either by statute or by executive order of the President. Among the most important are the Council of Economic Advisers (1946), the National Security Council and its staff (1947), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (1963), the Council on Environmental Quality (1970), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (1976), the Office of Administration (1977), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (1989). Under President George W. Bush, the Office of Homeland Security (2001 - later became a cabinet department) and the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (2001) were added. The EOP is overseen by the White House Chief of Staff and traditionally consists of the President’s closest advisors.

The following currently fall under the Executive Office of the President:

Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of the United States Trade Representative
President's Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligence Oversight Board
White House Military Office
White House Office

Have a beef with all this - write your Congresscritter - they're the ones who made the law and can change it.

Richard's $.02

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Paslode

My personal feeling is that some have made the Constitution a flexible document on a case by case basis through the use of legal mumbo jumbo by Lawyers.

When in American history has this not been the case?

Originally Posted by Praetorian

The real problem is, is that Barrack Obama is the least experienced person to hold the job of POTUS in the modern age.

I strongly agree with the notion that the current president's lack of experience is problematic.

However, I do not think that making this argument from the stand point of history is the way to go. There are examples of inexperienced presidents going on to do their jobs well, as there are examples of very experienced presidents doing poorly.

And above all, there's a dozy of a question: Can any pre-presidential experience really prepare a person for the loneliest job in America, if not the world?

But he is a pretty smart guy. Smart enough to know he doesn't know what he's doing on certain issues so he's surrounding himself with other smart people who do have experience with the subjects where he's lacking. The big danger in this is that when one turns over the reins to somebody else to "advise" them on issues they have little experience with, they put a great deal of power in those people. It can be difficult to know if the advice they are getting is correct and prudent, since the receiver has no frame of context to challenge it. This over-reliance on others who are not screened or accountable to the American people is not a desirable attribute of a presidential administration.

I respectfully disagree on your assessment of the president's intellect. I would compare his intellectual style to an undergraduate, but that comparison would be disrespectful to collegians.

Therefore, the dynamic you're describing is, in my mind, especially likely to unfold and when it does it will be disastrous. (I dread a conversation between the president and Leon Panetta about an imminent threat to America's security. I think it will go something like a MacGruber skit from SNL.)

[Richard]

Therefore, the dynamic you're describing is, in my mind, especially likely to unfold and when it does it will be disastrous. (I dread a conversation between the president and Leon Panetta about an imminent threat to America's security. I think it will go something like a MacGruber skit from SNL.)

I fear it'll be a situation like that faced by President Rbt Fowler in The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy - I only hope we have a Jack Ryan nearby when it occurs...or...

Richard's $.02

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

And above all, there's a dozy of a question: Can any pre-presidential experience really prepare a person for the loneliest job in America, if not the world?

No.... Nothing can FULLY prepare somebody for that job... But most are better prepared than he was/is. They have at least SOME relevant experience to some policy area that the executive administers. Obama had none.

In terms of making the argument in terms of history, I only mention as some sort of context as to how ill prepared he was.

The time for that debate is now passed. He's been in office now 7 months and I've seen enough to judge his actual performance. I'm unimpressed with how hes risen to the occasion (and honestly, quite scared for the future of the country). His administration seems unfocused, almost scatter shot, tackling a new issue every day (which is fine as far as I'm concerned because it means he's not getting traction on any of them- but its not a way to run a lemonade stand, let alone a government) rather than picking AN ISSUE to move forward with. Each day he adds another czar for some esoteric niche issue, rather than tackling the big, tough issues facing the country right now.

I do not however think hes unintelligent. I think he has some smarts. I think the fact that hes gotten to where hes gotten DESPITE his obvious lack of qualifications might speak towards his being a pretty bright guy...

I disagree with most of his policies. But I don't necessarily characterize those who disagree with me politically as stupid.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

In all honesty I believe many people underestimate Barry's intellegance. Make no mistake IS very smart. That is what scares me about him. A bumbling idiot would make the right decision for the county sometimes, just percentage will be there. No, this guy is tearing down this country IMHO piece by piece. He can then rebuild it to his socilist ideals and maintain a certin amout of power even if he is not president, he would maintaqin power as one of the people that rebuilt this country into the socilist paradise they want.

A president only needs sufficient intelligence.

Any organization larger than about 4 people needs a leader who can delegate wisely.
The ability to judge the competence and motives of others is more important than raw brainpower.

A president also needs the moral courage to make decisions which may cost him personally, but benefit the nation.

Our current president has demonstrated that he has neither these abilities nor the necessary moral courage.

(Oath...schmoath. It's all about the O. )

<edit>
A relevant article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...f_conceit.html

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

When in American history has this not been the case?

There have always been those whom where and are willing exploit the Constitution for personal gain, but now it is the vast majority in DC have jumped aboard the shit on your neighbor train.

It might very well be legal in the eyes of a Lawyer or Legal Scholar, but it is wrong in my book.


Based current events in the US, I can see how Lawyers, Politicians, Journalists, Educators and Intellects end up on the priority hit lists of Cultural Revolutions.

[Richard]

Based current events in the US, I can see how Lawyers, Politicians, Journalists, Educators and Intellects end up on the priority hit lists of Cultural Revolutions.

"Whatever can be done will be done. The only question is, will it be done by you or to you?" Thomas L Friedman, Economist and Futurist

Based on the challenges of the current situation, I can't - but I've seen it happen elsewhere and understand why those seeking power illigetimately choose to do so - and being retired SF and an educator - I guess I'd be on your cultural hit list x 2 - if you could catch me and I didn't find you first.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it destroys itself from within." Will Durant, Historian

From what I've studied, seen, and experienced - we're not there...yet...and have many - including lawyers, politicians, journalists, educators, and intellectuals - who remain fully committed to not allowing it to happen.

Richard's $.02

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Richard

From what I've studied, seen, and experienced - we're not there...yet...and have many - including lawyers, politicians, journalists, educators, and intellectuals - who remain fully committed to not allowing it to happen.

Richard's $.02

The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry. ~Thomas Paine

[Praetorian]

Ok.... I Hope this isnt a repost... I did a search and the name didnt come up....

This particular Czar is somebody to keep a VERY close eye on...

John Holdren "Science Czar

Im usually pretty skeptical of hyperbolic reports about government sponsored eugenics and the such, but every source I've found indicates that these REALLY ARE THIS GUY'S PUBLISHED THOUGHTS.... How ANYBODY could appoint somebody this NUTTY really has me concerned.

[Richard]

Im usually pretty skeptical of hyperbolic reports about government sponsored eugenics and the such, but every source I've found indicates that these REALLY ARE THIS GUY'S PUBLISHED THOUGHTS.... How ANYBODY could appoint somebody this NUTTY really has me concerned.

Again - context is important here when considering such postings on the WWW. Those may have been his thoughts in 1977 - a time when the en vogue science thinking was to predict a rapidly approaching future of ecological catastrophe related to over-population and massive food shortages. It didn't happen quite as predicted - and science moved on to other projected calamities - e.g., a global ice age, global warming, rising sea levels, water shortages, etc.

People - scientists, politicians, and religious leaders included - have historically struggled with accuracy in making such dire predictions and forced to change their opinions on many occasions - and it might, therefore, be more important to know how and why the guy's thinking has progressed - if at all - over the last three decades, and what he thinks now as opposed to what he thought then.

As noted British economist John Maynard Keynes stated, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"

Richard's $.02

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by Richard

Again - context is important here when considering such postings on the WWW. Those may have been his thoughts in 1977 - a time when the en vogue science thinking was to predict a rapidly approaching future of ecological catastrophe related to over-population and massive food shortages. It didn't happen quite as predicted - and science moved on to other projected calamities - e.g., a global ice age, global warming, rising sea levels, water shortages, etc.

People - scientists, politicians, and religious leaders included - have historically struggled with accuracy in making such dire predictions and forced to change their opinions on many occasions - and it might, therefore, be more important to know how and why the guy's thinking has progressed - if at all - over the last three decades, and what he thinks now as opposed to what he thought then.

As noted British economist John Maynard Keynes stated, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"

Richard's $.02

I would agree to an extent... there are some things where one can say "oops, I changed my mind" (not that I've heard that hes said this?) and then go on to a great career in public service. There are some ideas however which are so beyond the pale that simply ever having supported them, should be a disqualifying factor for future public service, regardless of how in vogue it was at the time. I don't really care that David Duke sewed patches over the eye holes in his bed sheets (the same would go for Robert Byrd IMHO). Having been an outspoken member of the KKK causes me enough questions about his judgment that no matter of time can pass where I can say "OK.... Now you're rehabilitated enough to influence national policy."

Advocating FORCED Eugenics in the 1970's is such a position because of the real world horrors such ideologies brought about just 30 years earlier.

There are plenty of other learned scientists in this country, with credentials at least as impressive as Holdren's who HAVEN'T written books advocating spiking the drinking water to sterilize mass populations.


There are lots of OTHER jobs a person like this can hold in this great country, OTHER than special science adviser to the The President.

[Richard]

Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment is a co-authored textbook of over 1000 pages and a template for environmental education and discussion of the topics it covers.

Preface

Since the first edition of Population, Resources, Environment was published seven years ago, the population of the world has grown by almost one-half billion people -- roughly the number that lived in the entire world when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. In the same period, famine has stalked the nomads of the sub- Saharan region of Africa and the struggling peasants of the Indian subcontinent, an energy crisis has transformed perceptions of the world resource situation, and nuclear weapons have become increasingly accessible to the nations of the world.

Since 1972, the world economy has been rocked by both monetary inflation and production recession. The significance of environmental deterioration has become inescapable, and its complex relation to economics has been brought to the attention of millions who had never previously paid attention to either. The realization has dawned that seemingly disparate events in the economic, environmental, and political spheres are interconnected. That civilization has entered a period of grave crisis is now doubted only by those afflicted with incurable Micawberism; everyone who is alertable is alerted.

But being alert to the existence of a crisis is not enough if a rational response to it is to be generated. One must also thoroughly understand the elements of the crisis and how they interact. The present book, based on Population, Resources, Environ*ment, is an attempt to provide a more thorough, up-to-date understanding of the population-resource-environment predicament and to discuss strategies for dealing with it. In format and emphasis it is quite different from the earlier book.

There is a brief introductory chapter designed to give the reader a capsule overview of the predicament of humanity, a framework into which the more detailed discussions that follow can be fitted. The first major section, consisting of three chapters, gives a detailed review of the physical and biological systems of Earth. This provides background material for students who have not previously been exposed to basic geology and ecology.

In this section, as in the rest of the book, a great deal of numerical data and some equations will be found. To grasp the prob*lems humanity now faces, one must understand both their magnitudes and the rates at which they are changing. The vast majority of this material, however, calls for no mathematical sophistication beyond arithmetic and the ability to read graphs. In some cases, high school algebra is required, and, in a few, results from calculus are introduced. But the significance of the results is discussed in each case, so knowl* edge of calculus is not required for understanding.

The second section covers population and renewable resources -- land, soil, water, forests, and food. The coverage of all these topics has been updated and consid*erably enlarged from that in the second edition of Population, Resources, Environ*ment.

The third section covers energy and materials far more comprehensively than did our previous books, with special attention paid to nuclear energy and other possible sources for the long term, as well as to the potential of energy conservation.

The material on environmental disruption in the fourth section has been updated and includes more comprehensive coverage of carcinogens, mutagens, climate modification, and many other topics. The last section on social, economic, and political change, including the issue of population control, has likewise been con*siderably expanded.

Extensive footnotes with references to the technical literature document key points throughout the book. In addition, at the end of each chapter there is a brief list of references, Recommended for Further Reading, containing our selection of the most generally useful works for further exploration of the topics in the chapter. This precedes the annotated chapter bibliographies that will be familiar to readers of our other books. In both footnotes and bibliographies, we have concentrated on recent additions to the literature, sometimes at the expense of important, even seminal works. We believe that the more recent contributions contain the latest thinking on a given topic, and their bibliographies often provide a full entrée to the previous literature of that subject.

We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy. Our apprehension about the course of humanity expressed in Population, Resources, Environment and Human Ecology has deepened; if there is another edition of Ecoscience, we hope that events will then permit a more opti*mistic evaluation.

FWIW - by reading their bios- it sounds as if it is the Ehrlichs - not Holdren - who are the population experts - Holdren's areas of interest and expertise seem very different to me. Here are the authors bios:

Ehrlichs:

http://www.usc.edu/admin/provost/tyl...e/tyler98.html

Holden:

Dr. John Holdren receives the Heinz Award in Public Policy for his prodigious contributions to such complex issues as arms control, sustainable development and global energy resources. Dr. Holdren is that rare scholar who is also a born negotiator, one who is able to inspire colleagues and students to new heights of effort and understanding while possessing the ability to cut to the heart of a problem and offer new perspectives on which consensus can be based. Dr. Holdren's contributions to public policy are noteworthy, not simply because of their quality and scope, but also because they span a number of disciplines.

He is credited with playing a significant role in mobilizing the international community of policymakers and scientists to take action in the arms control area, where he has been a powerfully effective advocate of U.S. attention to the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia. He has been extremely active in the international policy dialogue regarding global environmental degradation and resource conservation.

He has served in a wide variety of advisory roles for policymakers in state, federal and international agencies since the early 1970s, and he became a member of President Clinton's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) when it was formed in 1994. Dr. Holdren chaired the first study requested from PCAST, which led to a revision of U.S. policy on cooperation with Russia on nuclear materials protection. Also in the mid-1990s, he co-chaired the National Academy of Sciences' reshaping of U.S. policy on the management of this country's weapons-grade plutonium. And from 1995 into 1999, he chaired a series of PCAST studies on revising U.S. energy research strategy to more effectively address the challenges of the 21st century, including especially the challenge of global warming.

Dr. Holdren has been a member since 1973 of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international group of scholars and public figures who meet regularly to discuss ways to reduce the dangers from weapons of mass destruction and to build international cooperation on other common problems. He served as chair of the executive committee of the Pugwash Conferences from 1987 to 1997, and was chosen by his colleagues to give the acceptance speech when the organization shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.

Dr. Holdren has been an extraordinarily effective and articulate leader in shaping public policy, not only through his various advisory roles to government but also indirectly, as an educator engaged in training the next generation of leaders in science and technology policy. He is currently at Harvard University, in both the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and the John F. Kennedy School of Government, which named him as its first Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy. Additionally, he serves as Visiting Distinguished Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center.

Dr. John Holdren has had a profound influence in international efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear conflict, achieve solid cooperation in energy-technology innovation and shape new understanding and policies relating to a workable strategy to ensure sustainable development of the earth's resources. He has had an enormous impact on bringing the tools of science and technology to bear on the challenges of formulating public policy to cope with the economic, environmental and security challenges posed by the scientific and technological advances of the 20th Century.

http://heinzawards.net/recipients/john-holdren

It might be worth reading the book for yourself and checking the citations for the text in question - sometimes it offers a much different point-of-view from that being used by someone/group with an apparent political agenda.

Richard's $.02