As we all know by now:
So, who creates new Cabinet positions? Is it an executive order? Google searches have yielded some good history of Cabinet positions(such as this one), but not the process of creation.
I think GW said he created the position.
My WAG is that the President has the power to create any cabinet-level position that he wants to, but to staff and fund an agency under that position, he needs the approval of Congress.
i believe the answer was right in the link you posted:
Hmm, I still read that to apply only to who fills the positions. I want to know if President Bush could, say, create a “Secretary of fetching the President’s slippers” and presto chango, we have a new cabinet position. What is the creation process?
Obviously, Ridge must be approved by the Senate (no chance he won’t be IMO). But does the Senate have to approve the existence of the post itself?
You seem to be talking about the U.S. and, under the Constitution, there is no such thing as a “cabinet”.
Indeed, there is good cause to consider any President who insists on a “Cabinet” to be guilty of ------ well, ------- ahhh, -------- errr, -------- how about the vague but specific “a violation of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution” (–which is, of course, an impeachable offense).
The Constitution is very unpleasant when it comes to the President’s position vis-a-vis the “Principle Officer” of a Department. (Or, as the Constitution also refers to them, the “Head” of a Department.) In particular, the Constitition, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the United States, establishes the President’s authority over the Head of a particular Department as being allowed to demand his (her) opinions in writing. Heavy.
If, on the other hand, you are asking "Who makes a Department and authorized it to have a “Head” or “Principle Officer”, then that is the Congress.
Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as the Department of Energy, either. What’s your point?
Article III Section 3 defines Treason:
[sup]Article III, Section 3, US Constitution[/sup]
I don’t see how that has anything to do with the existence of the cabinet. Are you accusing every President of treason? I don’t see how having a Cabinet can be defined as making war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies.
The relevant part is Article II Section 2:
[sup]Article II, Section 2, US Constitution[/sup]
I don’t understand how that qualifies as “very unpleasant.” It states plainly that the President may require the principle officer of a department to submit something in writing. Uhm, so?
The President has the authority to appoint offficers inferior to those of the department heads without the consent of Congress, as per Article II, Section 2 (See bolded part):
[sup]Article II, Section 2, US Constitution[/sup]
If “Director of Homeland Defense” is to be inferior to the Secretary of Defense, and therefore the Office of Homeland Defense be a part of the Department of Defense, then the President probably does not need the consent of the Senate to make such an appointment.
The president can get any adviser he wants to, and give him a paying job, within the budget alloted to him. Sometimes he doesn’t even need consent of Congress; if they stall on a nomination process for a relatively important job for a few months too many, because of a filibuster or hostile, but unsupported, leadership in the Senate, he can claim executive emergency or something like that and hire the person outright.
From CNN
The story also goes on to say that several Senators are proposing that a new Cabinet department be created.
friedo, do the words/phrases “dictator”, “Pericles”, “coup d’ tait”, “siezure of Power”, “Adolf Hitler”, or “John Adams” mean anything to you. The Constitution explicitly forbids the President to have chain-of-command-like authority over anyone but military and naval officers. It does, however, authorize him (or her) to demand the opinions of Heads of Department in writing.
Do you, my dear friedo, know anything about management? If so, would you explain (–I know that it’s not the Pit but no other language will suffice–) How in the fucking hell you can manage anything when your sole authority over your minions is to “demand their opinions in writing”? I most sincerely hope that you respond with “You can’t.” And that is exactly what the Founders had in mind and what the Constitition establishes.
I, for one, not liking dictatorship, find that managerially-hideous situation to be a very happy thing. 
As to the strange “office of Homeland Defence”, smacking of black shirts with silver trimmings, should the Senate allow the President his free choice of an appointee at that level with the Power that is implied by the press, then the Senate has gone collectively insane. That is exactly the scenario in Rome as it went from a Republic to a Police Dictatorship (and precipitated a Civil War–See Julius Gaius C.'s Comentaries, writ over 2,000 years ago but still available in most Public Libraries).
There is only one “loophole” available here. The President can do with his personal [“White House”] staff pretty much as he/she pleases.
And, by the way, try reading “H.Clinton” instead of “G.W.Bush” when thinking of “the President”.
First of all, Sea, it’s a coup d’etat. I don’t think my mother-in-law’s grandmother (whose maiden name was Tait) would appreciate her name associated with a bloodless takeover of the lawfully constituted government. 
Now, as to your other issue: Please read Article II, Section 2, again:
U.S. Const. Art. II, §2 (emphasis supplied). [Courtesy of friedo.]
Kindly note that the provision refers to the opinions of the heads of the executive departments. Therefore, as the Chief Executive of the nation, the President is the de facto and de jure head of the executive departments. These departments are created by the President and tasked with the implementation and execution of the operations delegated to him.
For example, as the Commander in Chief of the military, he may create a Department of the Army and Department of the Navy (sound familiar?) or consolidate those functions in a single Department of Defense. Getting the idea? If Congress decided that the US needed someone to implement and oversee the use and development of energy sources, they could legislate the funding for such a task and allocate it to the president for the purpose of doing that which Congress has ordered. Alternatively, the President can decide that a seperate department is needed to do something, he can restructure it and ask Congress to fund the new department. A prime example of this is the separation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services under Carter (I think).
Congress can’t tell the Prez to set up a department, but they can allocate the funding in such a way that prevents the President from sliding the bucks over to the Bureau of Procuring Interns or whatever, leaving him no choice but to set up a Cabinet-level executive department. If they aren’t specific about how the money is to be used, the President can simply task one of the existing executive departments with the additional mission.
As head of the Executive branch, the President is the leader of the “functional” branch of government. His authority extends to implementing and executing the laws enacted by the Legislative branch and vetted by the Judicial branch. In doing so, he has broad authority to create departments, positions, and authorities to execute the mandates created by Congress. Congress, OTOH, can rein in the President by de-funding or refusing to appropriate for things they don’t want the Prez to do.
If it gets nasty, there’s this group of nine folks in Washington. . .I think they’re called Billy Rehnquist and the Supremes or something like that. They step in and decide whether one branch or another is acting in derogation of the Constitution.
I do know a little bit about management, and if you do, I can analogize it in terms you might understand. Do you think Lee Iacocca built every single Chrysler car and truck between 1979 and 1992 himself? Of course not. He delegated different duties to committes, staffs, and departments that implemented the plans he drew up to fulfill the mandates the board of directors gave him. The board of directors had to operate under the eye of the stockholders, who could vote the board out at the annual meeting. We have things to do that sort of thing too; we just call them “elections.”
This is kind of simplified and written on the fly, and if a Constitutional Law scholar (which I ain’t, definitely) wants to fine-tune or correct me, you’re welcome to do so.
Sorry if I’m a bit flip and Pit-like in my imagery. However, Sea Sorbust’s comments smack of the kind of imagery and “logic” used by the folks who make their own license plates and refuse to use zip codes. It’s folks like that who give real conservativism (and libertarianism, too) a bad name.
Zappo
Damned proud to be American and if you want to call that jingoistic, go right ahead.
Sea Sorbust, do the words, “What the hell are you talking about?” mean anything to you?
Let me introduce you to a little something called the United States Code. It incorporates ALL U.S. law. In 3 USC 301, we discover:
In 5 USC 101, we discover that:
Now, follow along, and ask for pictures if you need them. 5 USC 101 defines the Executive departments; that is, agencies which fall under the authority of the Executive and not the Legislature. For those of you without a scorecard, the Executive is the President of the United States. So, following the train of reasoning (do you need to stop and rest for a minute?), the departments named in 5 USC 101 are under the authority of the President. They answer to him and him alone, with oversight functions performed by the appropriate Congressional committees.
Given that, 3 USC 301 gives the President the sole authority to name the people who head the Executive departments (refer to previous paragraph if confused), as well as to name persons to any position requiring Senate approval.
So, in short, the United States code clearly defines the names of the Executive departments – or, as they are commmonly referred to, the Cabinet – clearly places them under the power of the Executive, and clearly grants the President the sole authority to name the heads of those departments.
Your paranoid fantasies of Nazis aside, it should be manifestly clear to you by now that, when the President says he is creating a new Cabinet-level position, he is exercising the power granted him under Titles 3 and 5 of the United States Code. He can do it whenever he wants. He can designate a Secretary of Lima Beans tomorrow if he wants to. If he wants a Department of Lima Beans, he will need the approval of the Senate to fund and staff it.
This is the Straight Dope, not Wacky Theory Central, you know.
I shall not listen to the sound of your bull-dozers as they attack, topple, and destroy the Tree of Life and its sappling, the Tree of Liberty.
Nor can I read the words reflecting the orders to those bulldozers.
At least, not today.
Uh . . . ok. scratches head
Um . . . my cat’s breath smells like cat food?
And, at very least, not in General Questions.
This is not a request.
Yawn. Sea Sorbust, why don’t we continue this discussion here?