This may the wrong forum, and may have already been asked and answered in one of the many other Trump-Comey threads, but here goes.
I’ve heard a lot of discussion this week about how the FBI director is appointed to a 10 year term. They wanted to limit it to avoid the abuses of someone like Hoover, but wanted it longer than the term of any one particular president, supposedly to make them more independent or something.
And yet, the president can fire the FBI director at will. So what’s the point of having a 10 year term, if it can be terminated at any moment? Any president (as we’ve seen) can decide for whatever reason that “I don’t like this guy, I want someone else.” What’s to keep the next president from saying “I don’t like Trump’s guy, I want my guy”? It seems like the 10 year term is really only effective if he can’t be removed at will. (Not to say he couldn’t be removed at all… He could be impeached or something…) So what am I not getting?
It means the person can’t serve in that position for more than 10 years. Period. They may or may not make it to 10 years, but they gotta go at the end, regardless of anyone’s wishes. it’s a limit, not a promise.
As you noted in your OP, the point of the law limiting the director’s term to 10 years was to prevent abuses as seen during Hoover’s tenure – that is, it’s to prevent any director from becoming too powerful.
[QUOTE=FBI]
The FBI Director has answered directly to the attorney general since the 1920s. Under the Omnibus Crime Control Act and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-3351, the Director is appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by the Senate. **On October 15, 1976, in reaction to the extraordinary 48-year term of J. Edgar Hoover, Congress passed Public Law 94-503, limiting the FBI Director to a single term of no longer than 10 years. **
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think this is accurate. It’s more likely that the reason it is long enough to overlap presidential terms is to allow for continuity from the end of one term to the beginning of the next, and perhaps to help with a transition of power. In other words, it’s to help the office of the president rather than to provide a check on it. Otherwise as you’ve suggested it’s useless since the president can fire a director they don’t like.
Imagine a situation where a new president takes office and he or she would like the previous director to stick around long enough to see the new administration settle in, but can’t because the director’s term has hit the limit and they are forced to leave office. I imagine that’s the situation they were trying to avoid.
So FBI Director #1 works for two presidential terms and sticks around for two years of the third. Then FBI Director #2 finishes out that term, works for two more terms, and his appointment ends when the President’s term does. So, it ensures the problem only comes up once every 20 years?
Yeah there’s no way to exactly prevent this. It just makes it less likely. :o
It’s like the old dilemma where you get a 10 pack of hot dogs each time but the buns always come in an 8 pack; they’ll even out and match eventually if you replace each as it runs out. Funny enough we’re even dealing with the same numbers… Maybe legislators came up with the term limit after eating hot dogs?
