Had you bothered to read the OP, you would have seen the link in it.
Please. Issa and McHenry? They have as much credibility as my big toe.
Frankly, to address someone upthread, I don’t think Obama is being ENOUGH of an arrogant jackass to the Congressional Repubs. They should all be herded into one of those basement conference rooms they relegated the Democrats trying to hold hearing on the Downing Street Memo to and told that it’s their new caucus meeting room.
The Secretary of Commerce reports directly to the POTUS anyway. There is no change of jurisdiction here, and your allegation that Obama is going to tamper with the numbers is from Crazy Town.
So you would rather call me names than be concerned over a Presidential action that is aimed solely at screwing with the representation of the country? And you have the gall to call me a kneejerk Neanderthal?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. If Bush had done this, you would have herniated yourself bitching about it, you hypocritical little dickhead.
If Bush had moved something that was under White House jurisdiction to another area that was also under White House jurisdiction, we’d have herniated ourselves bitching? Interesting theory.
Post 26 explains nothing. It’s a mention that the department had some trouble with its computers and might have to resaort to older methods. This is, to the IRS, a irritating but relatively minor problem. WHy does this one suddenly rate direct Presidential attention?
Secondly, there are significant COnstitutional issues. Commerce reports to Congress. The Census is designed and desginated in such a manner that it is not to be controlled or influenced by the President. It does not report to him, but merely published its results.
Now, I’m not saying there is neccessarily a sinister reason. But when somebody not known for deep integrity of character does something unexpected and suspicious, in a suspicious manner, and acts as if they have something to hide by suspiciously and conscipicuously refusing to explain themselves… it’s suspicious.
[quotew]
Well, at least you admit that it’s what you think, instead of being factual.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, it is a fact, to the extent any character judgement can be.
Of course.
Conversely, the only reason Judd Gregg still wants the census bereau to report directly to him, is because he was planning on manipulating the numbers to shift representation in the next elections.
See – anyone can make half-baked, moronic claims like that. Come on. Join in. What else is Obama secretly planning to personally fuck you out of?
Appropos to the post above - Congress created the Census Bureau and the Commerce Department. They have statutory oversight of these agencies and departments.
Congress has no oversight over the White House though - and this came up in the Justice Department controversies in the Bush Administration that were much discussed here. I seem to recall that most of you didn’t think much of that at the time.
Like I said - not an equivalence, just noting an obvious danger.
Many people believe, for good reasons IMHO, that the Attorney General is supposed to have a greater degree of distance from politics than the Secretary of Commerce.
ETA: And your argument about statutory oversight is off-target. The people subject to congressional oversight are still subject to congressional oversight. Obama’s increased involvement or oversight doesn’t change that.
[quote=Smiling Bandit]
Secondly, there are significant COnstitutional issues. Commerce reports to Congress.
[quote]
Commerce is part of the Executive branch. Commerce reports to the President. There is no Constitutional requirement for the Department of Comerce to report the Congress. The Department of Commerce is not even mentioned in the Constitution. The Department wasn’t even created until 1903.
Uh huh. Who created it?
Ah. So you’re claiming “he has no accomplishments” is a fact?
Teddy Roosevelt.
Congress created the Department of Commerce therefore it isn’t subject to executive branch control? Interesting constitutional theory. Maybe you should argue that the Supreme Court adopt that one, instead of the contradictory one they have.
[I realize **Mr. Moto** is ignoring me, but I’ll continue to call him on his bad arguments.]
My point, however, is that it’s ludicrous to claim that the only reason Obama is shifting the chain of command is to screw over Republicans. As my tongue in cheek accusation of Judd Gregg, a Republican, illustrates.
Never said it wasn’t subject to executive branch control at all - just that there is a statutory reporting requirement for the department. Moving the functions inside the White House make them susceptible to executive privilege claims more easily.
The statute in question:
I don’t know why Obama is doing it, and I said the OP is misguided. But personally I think the census ought to be left in Commerce for the sake of good government. If it needs special attention, it can be given it there.
No, Jack, you don’t understand. Anything a Democrat does is partisan politics and designed to hurt Republicans, and anything a Republican does comes from the goodness of his heart with the help of Jesus.
Your statute doesn’t support you at all. Nothing there puts the DOC under “control” of Congress, nor does it say anything about the Census. It just has to report what it does with its money.
I’ll buy that.