Furthermore, the statute creating the US Secret Service specifically lists who is qualified for protection by the USSS: (1) the President and Vice President; (2) their immediate families; (3) former presidents; and (4) through (8) are various other dignitaries. The statute goes on to say: “The protection authorized in paragraphs (2) through (8) may be declined.” 18 USC 3056
Note that by law, the Secret Service is responsible for the protection of the President and Vice President, and they have no legal authority to decline this protection. The idea that they may circumvent the USSS protection mission (especially with their own Blackwater or something) simply has no basis in law.
So I guess the President cannot order up a pizza to be delivered and pay for it himself, since “Cooking for the President” in an inherent government function. :rolleyes:
More seriously, I would agree that the president could not hand over his own funds to help the Secret Service acquire and pay for more agents. However, I do not take that to mean he couldn’t hire his own personal staff.
so, using personal money to augment Secret Service budget - wrong.
Using your OWN money to hire a person to do a job - not wrong
I can’t fathom the existence of a law that would prevent the president from doing what any citizen’s free to do (hire bodyguards). I think it’s kinda a silly question, however, because it won’t happen.
Sure, depending on what they do. Could he use his own money to hire a gardener for his own personal house? Of course. Could he hire an attorney to draft his will? Of course.
Could he use his own money to hire a private gardener for the White House? No. Hire an attorney to advise him on drafting an Executive Order? No.
The key, which you correctly identify but perhaps didn’t realize, is that he may hire whomever he wants on the basis of him conducting himself in the role of an ordinary citizen, and those are “personal” staff. Once that crosses over into people that serve him on the basis of him being the President of the United States, different rules apply.
I do not read the statute the same why you do I guess. This would seem to apply to ANY goverment employee, whether the President or GS-1. What you are saying seems to be if a goverment employee had a car and driver provided by his/her agency, that employee couldn’t go out and rent a car, or hire his/her OWN car and driver (maybe for a better, flashier car) to go back and forth to work. Is that what you are saying?
I recall that when Charlie asked President Bartlet about dating Zoey, Bartlet’s daughter, Barlet replied that he wanted Charlie to remember 2 things, Zoey was 19 years old and her father is in charge of the 82nd Airborne.
I’m pretty sure a POTUS could call the Commandant over at Eighth and Eye and tell the Commandant that he’s unhappy with the level of personal protection the White House is getting from the USSS and ask if the Commandant knows of any Marines who’d be willing to beef things up.
No. Commuting is not an official activity, otherwise every government official would get a car. Protection of the President (including during his transportation) is an official government activity, and I’ve cited the law which compels the protection provided by the USSS.
But there ARE government officials that get a car AND a driver, strictly for commuting from home to their office. Are you saying this is NOT an official activity? I would hope it is, since the American taxpayers are paying for it, via line-items in official government agency budgets.
Let’s just cut to the chase and have you provide a cited argument that provides the basis for the President to hire his own praetorian guard outside of government oversight. I’ve provided my cites to the GAO opinion on augmentation of appropriations, the USSS statute, and for good measure the limits on what Batman may do for the Federal government.
So, suppose we have Billionaire J. Tycoon, CEO of GigaCorp. He’s hired private security for himself. Their job isn’t to protect the CEO of GigaCorp, or the holder of any other particular office: Their job is to protect an individual named Bill Tycoon, because Bill likes staying alive, and he can afford it. Over the years, he’s built up a very good professional relationship with his bodyguards, and trusts them a great deal.
Now suppose that Mr. Tycoon, private citizen, runs for President and wins. Ravenman, are you saying that he’s legally required to fire his hardworking and trustworthy employees?
Thanks for those cites, however, none of them further your opinion that the President cannot hire his own employees. Here’s a link to the GAO reports violations of the anti-deficiency law: Link
I’d be interested to see if you can find any reported cases that involve someone paying for a good and/or service with their own personal money.
In fact, YOU are the one making the statement that the President CAN’T hire anyone to work for him and pay with his own personal funds. And by extension, NO federal employee can do so. I would like to see at least one cite where a federal employee was punished, corrected, fired, demoted, or anything like that when using PERSONAL funds to pay for a service. If it’s illegal to do so, as you keep stating, there must be at least ONE case where it has happened.
He can keep paying them, sure. He can triple their salary if he wants. But they cannot do the job that the Secret Service is charged with doing.
I’m just Mr. Tycoon has excellent housekeepers, gardeners, maintenance staffs, and so on. They cannot just come with him and start doing those jobs in the White House, either. Nor can he pay his lawyer the $1 million a year and have him provide legal advice to the President on his official duties as a private citizen and not the White House Counsel.
But the private security isn’t doing the job the Secret Service is doing. The Secret Service’s job is to protect the President. The private security’s job is to protect Billionaire J. Tycoon. Likewise, Tycoon’s lawyer isn’t providing legal advice on his official Presidential duties; he’s providing him with legal advice on Tycoon’s private dealings.
31 USC 1342: “An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. This section does not apply to a corporation getting amounts to make loans (except paid in capital amounts) without legal liability of the United States Government. As used in this section, the term “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.”
That whole chapter of US Code pertains to APPROPRIATIONS. You know, government provided funds? NOWHERE does it say an officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia cannot expend PERSONAL funds to employ personal services.
This is like me citing a law that forbids the ownership of sneetches, only to be told that the law is filed under “animal control” statutes rather than “imaginary beings” statutes. The plain text of the law is clear.
The whole thing about funding and appropriations rules is aimed at several abuses:
-the taxpayers’ money can only be spent in ways approved by Congress, either in the budget or in special appropriations bills. Can’t hire someone on the WH payroll for gardening and make them a bodyguard.
-a department cannot accept outside money to do something not mentioned in the budget; they don’t want government services to be “hired” to do what some wealthy individual asks.
-The GAO rules also, obviously, allow the congress to limit the extent to which the executive departments can do whatever they want. This also makes it harder for someone to set up their own private kingdom, immune from outside orders. It also prevents department heads from soliciting bribes disguised as job perks - “my gold-plated washroom paid for the companies I regulate.”
-not sure the exact rule, but the US military cannot be used internally against US citizens, except in war or rebellion. So the Navy Seals can’t substitute for the Secret Service.
If the president is accompanied by private bodyguards, then as long as they are not and do not claim to be “replacing” the secret service, then I don’t see this as a problem with any of these rules.
As I’ve said before, though, the paperwork to carry weapons would certainly be more tricky and complex, and using them even more interesting. The president may be able to order around the Secret Service hierarchy, for example, but I doubt that he can order state troopers to lay off if they feel these private guards are violating state carry rules, etc. He could order the Secret Service, with federal authority, to stop the state troopers from interfering with his bodyguard, but now we’re back to relying on the Secret Service for some functions; I’m not sure the president can pardon for state offenses, so these guys would be subject to the risk of state arrest for the remainder of their lives…
Yes, the plain text of the law IS clear - A government employee may not use appropriated funds (read: government, taxpayer funds) for personal services.
By your reading, a government employee, who has run out of appropriated funds for office supplies, cannot use his/her own money to buy pens to use at work - ridiculous.