The Corner’s Andrew McCarthy on the AG Gonzales saga:
[…] I’ve been arguing for a couple of weeks now, pace such eminences as Charles Krauthammer, that it would be a grave mistake for Gonzales to resign or be removed over the trumped-up charge that politics played a role in the dismissal of U.S. attorneys. It would be very harmful to the country, I’ve reasoned, if the legacy of this US Attorney saga is that congress  the country’s most politicized body  can place limits on the president’s power to remove executive branch officers. But I’ve also conceded, ignoring US Attorneys for a moment, that the overall Gonzales tenure at DOJ has been disturbing. As Ed Whelan and I found yesterday in a Federalist Society panel on the current controversy, it is a lot easier to argue for upholding the administration’s legal rights than to defend DOJ’s management.[…] There has been a lot of talk in the US Attorneys controversy about “performance” as the cause for at least some of the removals. The term is confusing (and reports are that the AG was annoyed at the DAG’s use of it in Senate testimony). Saying a dismissal was performance-based connotes incompetence, which, understandably is how the removed U.S. attorneys so labeled took it (impelling them to defend themselves vigorously). But it could also be indicative of policy disputes (such that a competent U.S. attorney declines to hew to the administration’s enforcement priorities), which is what Gonzales has suggested was meant when the term was used by top DOJ officials as the (entirely proper) rationale for the firings.
What, then, to make of Carol Lam? Wholly independent of Lam, there is little objective evidence nationally lo these six years that immigration enforcement is an administration priority. And while Lam was evidently failing, for years, to bring obvious cases, and members of congress were bitterly complaining, DOJ was defending her. Byron notes that one of DOJ’s top officials, remarkably, told Sen. Diane Feinstein: “Please rest assured that the immigration laws in the Southern District of California are being vigorously enforced”  even as DOJ’s internal study was telling a very different story.
Now, a US attorney can’t be out of step with an administration enforcement priority unless the administration actually has such a priority and the U.S. attorney knows what it is. But here, it doesn’t look like Lam was told to get it in gear on immigration enforcement, and it doesn’t look like the administration made it much of a priority for anyone to get it in gear on illegal immigration for most of the last six years. (See, e.g., this recent story regarding DOJ’s “six strikes and you’re out” immigration enforcement standard in Texas.) If Lam’s removal was “performance-based,” it is hard (based on what we currently know) to see it as a policy dispute. On the other hand, while Lam was apparently judged within DOJ’s hierarchy to be a subpar performer, this episode seems to say as much about the performance of DOJ itself as of Lam.
There would be nothing more inappropriate  legally, ethically or politically  than administration interference in a particular case for political reasons. As Byron [York] compellingly demonstrates, there’s no such evidence. But that’s increasingly cold comfort.
When Gonzales’ name was floated as a possible nominee for SCOTUS Justice, many legal conservatives—myself vocally among them—were horrified. Gonzales, it seemed to many of us, was a legal opportunist of the O’Connor bent—and so while we thought his political/pragmatic approach to jurisprudence made him a horrible candidate for a Supreme Court justice (the same criticism, incidentally, we leveled at Harriet Miers), we weren’t terribly concerned about how it might affect his performance as AG.
However, his performance during this pseudo-scandal (and, I might add, during the NSA faux-scandal) has shown him to be rather inept at presenting the Administration’s positions without adding fuel to the the mini-fires Democrats always seem to be lighting, hoping one of them catches.
And Gonzales, it seems, is wearing wingtips made out of kerosene and straw.
As Captain Ed notes:
At the end of all this is the simple truth that Krauthammer understands—this was not a battle that the administration needed, and it came at exactly the wrong time. The Department of Justice made matters exponentially worse by changing their stories and unnecessarily damaging the reputations of the attorneys involved. At some point, Gonzales has to have some responsibility for this foot-shooting escapade.
The President is a very loyal man—almost to a fault. I admire him for it, frankly.
I also believe he knows that a Gonzales scalp will give Democrats an opportunity to spin this “scandal” story into something it’s not, and he is understandably reluctant to let such happen.
The question is, does he cut bait with Gonzales now and hope the stink goes away? Or does he hunker down and launch a full-scale offensive against the Democrats trying to gin up the scandal?
Because what he cannot afford is to just let things play out naturally.
Unlike Krauthammer and Morrissey, I’d like to see him fight back—if only out of principle. He can publicly chastise Gonzales’ bungling of the story, but remain firm on executive privilege. In that event, there would be no reason to fire Gonzales and give the Dems their head on a pike.
Again, I am no huge fan of Gonzales’. But I am likewise loath to let constant scandal-mongering become de rigeur, either—because such will only embolden liberal Democrats, who, we’ve seen, will do absolutely anything necessary to increase their political power, even if it comes at the expense of such things as CiC War Powers, Separation of Powers, Executive Privilege, AUMF, etc.
Just my opinion, though. Your mileage may vary.
If he tosses Gonzales to the Senatorial sharks, then you can bet that within a month some disgruntled staffer “a whistleblower” is going to spin some tale about another cabinet officer and on will go the show trial ‘n’ purge.
At this point President Bush cannot do otherwise, I think, than make the Senate fight it out on this front until the last bitter drop is wrung out of it. Force them to spend their time on a rather inconsequential affair. It will keep them out of more serious trouble.
Dafydd had another good point about this issue, also. If Gonzalez is canned, we have to find a new AG, and Kennedy/Leahy/Schumer get to pick him. I find that offensive, more offensive than I find Gonzalez, frankly.
Two good points . . .
Since Congress polls lower than President Bush, the Administration should go on the offensive.
Newton’s laws applied to Politics:
1. You can’t win.
2. You can’t break even.
3. You can’t quit the game.
In a “fair and objective world,” the sheer number of false and trivial complaints from the left side of the aisle would almost certainly lead to harassment charges, or at the very least a little bit of “boy who cried wolf” action in the press.
I know, you scoff.
I’m concerned that constant scanadal mongering, tacitly and mistakenly encouraged by the right, is leading towards a complete erosion of all executive powers.
I fear we we are headed for a day when the Presidency is marginalized and all power is held instead by 535 memebrs of congress, four hundred thirty five of whom are gerrymandered into safe seats and whose only responsiblity is to pander to the interest group who has manged to gain control of thier district.
Of course such a a set up would be terrific for handing out patronage and pork, but it would be horrible for the national defense, leading to craven, short sighted decisisons that endanger citizens and soldiers alike and uselss hearing that destroy the nations intelligence gathering ability. Hopefully we’ll never end up with anything like that.
Surely if we did the conservative punditocracy would notice…or maybe not.
So, can we have Ashcroft back?
“even if it comes at the expense of such things as CiC War Powers, Separation of Powers, Executive Privilege, AUMF, etc.”
I enjoy your description of yourself as a “legal conservative”
Well, Mojo hasn’t noticed.
Those are suspiciously similar to the laws of Thermodynamics, which as far as I’m aware, Newton had nothing to do with.
Although he could have. In his sleep.
Slartibartfast:
Okay, I’m an idiot. At least before my coffee.
Wait, I’m allergic to coffee. That explains a lot.
Umm, I was just testing you, yeah, that’s the ticket!
You know what confuses me?
The left claims that this is a scandal because the administration “politicized” the justice department – as if that’s anything new.
SO their response? A highly politicized set of hearings.
Uh… I know you guys are all into this “no absolute truth” thing, but doesn’t irony at least strike you? No? The law of non-contradiction? Never mind.
I’m concerned that constant scanadal mongering, tacitly and mistakenly encouraged by the right, is leading towards a complete erosion of all executive powers.
Yeah! Goddamn that Clinton anyway.
Sure, the right was constantly bringing up scandals about President Clinton. Some of them were bogus (travel office firings, for instance – lame and unfair, but hey, that’s the President’s choice). Most of them were very real and troubling.
But let’s say that all of them were too much, that it hurt America to keep doing that and it was bad for the presidency, I’m willing to concede that.
Does that mean it’s good to do it now? That it’s acceptable suddenly because the Democrats are getting even?
The firings, yes—the prosecution of at least one fired travel-office staffer on false allegations of corruption, not so much.
Didn’t madison encourage impeachment for presidents that remove officials per the removal power in ways congress doesn’t like? It would seem to me that there is plenty of room for a few hearings and truthfull testimony if the founders contemplated impeachment for this act. But then again, originalism is a sketchy philosophy.
Christopher.
Clintons’ name keeps coming up in refrence to the presidency because he lowered the bar so far. What did Bush do that has been bad for the presidency?Other than exercise his perogative, that is.
AG Gonzolez could just resign, saying that he really screwed the pooch, embarrassed the president, and was basically unqualified from the get go, but appreciates the opportunity to have tried.
Republican pundits seem to be in full up scapegoating mode. I still have not heard an explanation of what Gonzalez himself did wrong. I have read mischaracterizations of his words, ie “lied”, but nothing I have heard is actually substantial.
It’s just a popularity contest isn’t it? That’s exactly what happened to Tom Delay. So all the fucking “conservative” pundits yawned when the Dems went after him. Almost none of them bothered to mention he was responsible for a lot of good hard work in congress. He was effective but not popular. Now he’s a writer selling his new book. And now it’s Gonzalez. I have not heard any of those mother fucking moronic “conservative” pundits tell of any good Gonzalez has done as A.G. Not one fucking word. So when your grandchildren whisper their question about what happened to the conservative “movement”, tell them that we wouldn’t hang together so we all were hung seperately.
Not as sketchy as the previous two sentences, what exactly are you trying to say? And if you are refering to James Madison, he warrants the respect of a capital letter, and I would love to know what writings of his gave you such a notion.
Well… what good has he done as Attorney General? I’m serious, what has he done that’s good work? No prosecution of the CIA leakers, 5 strikes before you get prosecuted for illegal entry into the US, 600,000 illegals set free with the promise they’ll come back for trial, no prosecution of William Jefferson, shall I go on?
What has this guy done?
Didn’t madison encourage impeachment for presidents that remove officials per the removal power in ways congress doesn’t like?
No, James Madison did not.
I agree that Clinton was sleazy and very prone to scandalous behavior, I was just for the sake of argument agreeing to the premise to show that it doesn’t help his argument any. Even presuming it is wrong for the Republicans to keep hounding President Clinton’s many failings and corruption, that doesn’t somehow make doing so to President Bush’s lack of corruption and perceived failings right in any way.
Madison on the removal power
“The danger then consists merely in this: the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be im-peachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust. “
I’m trying to say that Congress looking into this removal, which is supposedly at the presidents “pleasure,” is not an aggrandizement against presidential power. So when we hear the founders thinking it proper for congress to go so far as impeach a president because of a “pleasurable” removal, it means that they certainly wouldn’t object to some people testifying under oath about a removal. But then again, originalism is full of holes. Like who elected this madison jerk? Not the silent majority, thats for sure.
Talking points like this are pathetic, you can see the rise of them regularly on the internet. Almost all of them come from the left, where the salivating masses wait for their commissars like Kos to throw out the latest line to attack the right with.
Sadly, they almost always are worthless, such as this amazingly out-of-context quote from leftists who with a 100% reversal now are willing to revere the constitution’s founders and their intent.
First off, in context this is a discussion of Article II, Section 2 of the constitution, which refers specifically to
In other words, it refers to the secretary of state and cabinet officials, ambassadors, supreme court justices and the like. More on this in a bit.
Madison’s comments are in reference to an ambiguity in the law: it states who can put them in place, but not who can remove them. This has traditionally been dealt with by the person in question resigning from office – thus nobody removes them, they quit. To my knowledge there’s been no one removed from one of these offices, but my historical knowledge is not exhaustive here.
Now, the leftist lockstep argument here is “Madison is saying that attorneys cannot be fired, and if you do so you should be impeached!”
The problem is, as I said, James Madison didn’t say anything of the sort. He made the quoted statement above about those persons who are appointed to their positions by the process outlined in the constitution: presidential nomination, congressional agreement.
However, there are many jobs in the United States executive department which are not hired through this process. Most of them, in fact, are not. Only the very highest, most powerful positions are dealt with in this process. Attorneys serving in the justice department under the Attorney General are hired, not nominated and confirmed.
Now, the hilarious thing is, this new “impeach him” talking point repeated like a 5 year old that learned a new word ironically applies to ever president that has been in office for the last 180 years of the nation’s history or so – at least the way these leftists are trying to apply it. Presidents have fired or hired lowerd eschelon employees without notice or import up to this point, including President Clinton (travel office, anyone?).
IN other words: it’s yet another idiot talking point that was emailed out and posted on lefty websites without any understanding or knowledge. It seems to work to kick President Bush in the furry beanbags, and that’s good enough for them, even if its utterly inapplicable and further would damn every President that has held office for over a century.
Which is pretty much typical really. Plastic Turkey, Grand Canyon employees, you name it. The pattern is well established and you’d think by now terribly embarassing for the left. But when you have no shame…
US attorneys are inferior officers—ie, they’re in the section of the constitution you quoted.
US attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. They are in the ambit of what madison is discussing. US Attorney is their position title. It isn’t the same as “an attorney in the US government.” How terribly embarassing of an idiot talking point it is to say otherwise.
Madison is saying that the president can remove them. But he also says that removing a meritorious officer is grounds for impeachment, at least in his book. Like I said, we don’t have to listen to that jerk, nobody voted him decider of what is constitutional.
Seems fairly clear to me.
Christopher,
I think i’m wrong. I’m not sure US attorneys are inferior officers. They’re probably “other officers of the united states” in the section you quoted.
B Moe,
Trivially clear.
I think you are right. Why limit Congressional Authority to just managing wars and foreign policy? You might as well take over the Justice Department, too! I would start impeachment hearings immediately, if not sooner.
I for one am seriously concerned about the DOJ’s ability to have 4th tier law school grads help them lie to congress. Quite seriously.
Correct, they are inferior officers, as created by law. Not appointed by the President and confirmed by congress. Not covered in the area President Madison was talking about.
Madison’s comment, as I stated, is not applicable to these events.
Except that they are appointed and confirmed. Did you try looking it up? Did you try googling ‘US attorneys confirmed’? Try that.
They are in this category:
“and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law”
Not the category of inferior officers. And they are what madison is talking about. But who cares about him anyway? he’s not even interpreting the constitution here. Just showing us his partisan ways in which he hopes to tear down the executive.
Fuckin A. Go get them, start an impeachment hearing over this. I would love to see it, find out if those safeguards Madison put in there against the tyranny of the majority still work.
Um, Emmadine?
Is there really anything in Madison’s writings that says impeachment should be mandatory if the president fires an “inferior officer”?
Bear in mind it took Congress passing the Tenure of Office Act to get them to impeach Andrew Johnson for firing an appointed-and-confirmed official. And Johnson was acquitted.
And I believe the Tenue of Office Act was overturned.
As unconstitutional.
Of course not. I doubt madison would mandate anything of congress. Im just taking this as describing his views of when impeachment is ok, or called for. But I also like the idea that it is for when the executive misuses a power it has been given. He doesn’t limit the president’s removal “pleasurable” removal authority. He just says that he considers certain pleasures impeachable.
So we can just rest on all the problems of originalism. What does madison have to do with Andrew Johnson? For that matter, what does some speech he gave in congress have to do with what is constitutional today? Not much, besides the fact that he’s on the masthead of the legal conservative federalist society and it is interesting to see how they react to the impeachment happy madison.
One of us needs more coffee.
I imagine the founders of the Federalist Society take into account the whole body of Madison’s work, which may put that one speech into a better perspective than you’re offering here.
Of course, Madison’s comment reflected his opinion. It really has no bearing on what is happening today. I say that because we have run our government for over 200 years with this constitution, and Presidents have fired US attorneys without asking for Congress’s consent. Only once, IIRC, has Congress attempted to take away the President’s perogative to fire politcal appointees, and that was during the Andrew Johnson administration. Again, IIRC, that didn’t turn out so well for Congress and has been cited as a prime example of Congressional overreach.
Now, with respect to the rest of the axe that emandine wants to grind: you ask what good is originalism if Madison’s opinion on this subject isn’t going to be followed? A nicely created strawman you got there. Originalism is a tool, it gives one an insight into what the thinking behind this part or that part of the Constitution was. Originalism is not a commandment, though. As the Constitution was actually put into effect and a government formed and running, some ideas and concepts and theories were vindicated; others found to be woefully wrong. I know, a shock – they were intelligent, wise men, but they couldn’t see all ends.
When a staute is construed by the court, they look to the legislature’s intent, as shown by the plain meaning of the words. Is that the end? No, because sometimes a legislature isn’t clear, or if the staute is applied as written an absurd result takes place.
Let us now address this firing from Madison’s impeachment point of view, as you so long, emandine. The President can hire any employee he wants, but he cannot fire that employee, because Congress could impeach him. Madison offered the opinion that such an impeachment ought to be done to prevent the firing of good officers. But that would also prevent the firing of bad officers, because a President never would know if a politically hostile house would use such a firing as a trumped-up charge to impeach a President and have him sent to the Senate for trial. Theresult would be that the President would have very little control over the Executive Branch as appointed officials could do what they wanted whithout fear of firing. and the Legislative branch would have de facto control of the Executive.
An absurd result. Madison did not take into account that impeachment may be used by a politcally motivated Congress to attack a President. He wanted to preserve good appointees in office without thinking through fully where this could lead.
Now do you understand why we don’t fully support every founding father’s idea, emandine? Or would you rather collect some more hay for that scarecrow?
Let me state this one more time so that I am perfectly clear.
If Congress can impeach the President for firing politcal appointees, then it could impeach the President for not firing political appointees. Congress would then be in a position to direct Executive Branch officials by threatening to have the President fire them if Congress’s will was not followed. And Congress would be in a position to control the Presidency by providing a list of officials that were not to be fired and a list of those who are to be fired…or else.
The principle of Separation of Powers would be lost, and Congress would end up contolling the Executive. Separation of Powers is clearly implied in the organization of the Constitution, and is clearly set forth in the writings of not just Madison, but other Founders. It, therefore, has a great more weight behind it than Madison’s musings on the uses of impeachment.
I really do not care, emandine, if you loathe George Bush with every fiber of your being…or not. I really do not care what your beef is with the Federalist Society. But I do care that the argument you are advancing in order to score some cheap debating society points off of Originalists or Federalist society members is so loaded with danger to the entire structure of the Federal government, and I do care that you are so concerned with winning that little Nelson Muntz ‘ha-ha’ that you can’t see where your argument leads.
This Senatorial show trial should concern everyone, but too many are too blinded by their game of ‘gotcha’ or building their ‘monument to me’ that they cannot see the danger this poses to the Republic.
Am I perfectly clear now?
If these guys are nominated and confirmed (news to me all 90+ of them), that still doesnt change the basic fact that these are not the class or President Madison here, and thus the entire leftist talking point is irrelevant. Making snide comments about originalism that you do not personally adhere to or not, your point is not valid.
So please, spread the word: this particular talking point is irrelevant and has no weight.
“you ask what good is originalism if Madison’s opinion on this subject isn’t going to be followed?”
I dont ask that at all. I say originalism is for tools because we shouldn’t give a shit what madison said. For one, what he said is not in the constitution. Also, he’s not accountable to us. Lastly, he’s not really the result of any contemporary political process. Give me the words of 9 unelected—but appointed by a contemporary president and confirmed by a senate—judges any day over the words of the speech a congressman gave in 1789.
“When a staute is construed by the court, they look to the legislature’s intent”
Scalia gonna whop yo ass.
“The President can hire any employee he wants, but he cannot fire that employee, because Congress could impeach him.”
Madison said congress would impeach him if the official (not just employee) was meritorious. He seems to not count political persecutions here.
“If Congress can impeach the President for firing politcal appointees, then it could impeach the President for not firing political appointees. “
Actually madison also talked about congress impeaching the political appointees themselves.
“If these guys are nominated and confirmed (news to me all 90+ of them), that still doesnt change the basic fact that these are not the class or President Madison here, and thus the entire leftist talking point is irrelevant.”
What makes you say that? Madison was talking about the removal power. Thats whats at stake here. The removal of officials.
Am I to take it, then, that you are a textualist?
And I must have missed where originalism came into this thread, unless it was a comment authored by you.
Sorry if you don’t agree with the idea of legislative intent, emandine, because that is exactly what both Federal and State courts use when construing a statute. And yes, the US Supreme Court does use that. They do not go into a Constitutional analysis unless they have to. Or so all of the opinions I have read in the past ten+ years say.
Thank you for agreeing that in this context, when there is so much other, more recent material on the subject, that Madison’s statement isn’t pertinent. Though why you brought it up in the first place is still foggy to me. I just took some guesses from the thrust of your comments that you disagree with the administration, Constitutional textualism (legislative intent writ large), and the Federalist Society – for reasons that you have not articulated.
Again, if the President can be impeached for firing a “good” appointee (and what is that but a political bone of contention between the executive and the legislative), then following a political argument to its conclusion – as Madison did not here – then a hostile Congress can impeach a President for firing a “bad” or “mediocre” appointee.
And why that would be a good thing escapes me, but from a separation of powers argument it is a very bad thing. As bad as the President deciding to investigate why a member of Congress fired a staffer, and subpoenaing that member and his staff to appear before him and answer his questions.
The activities of the English Parliament during the run-up, conduct, and aftermath of the English Civil War should give you pause about the potential of legislative tyranny. And the ability to bribe through pork is a power to great not to consider.
Oh. Intent, purpose, progress, text, I take it all in. Not all members of the Supreme court do, of course. Some, like scalia, think intent is basically a fiction, and also is unratified. He’s got a persuasive argument. But intent can be so fucking helpful!
I certainly do take umbrage with the fact that textualism is ‘intent writ large.’ Mostly because i don’t quite understand what ‘intent writ large’ means, but it sounds like intentionalism. Which is not text.
Madison’s point was that from a separation of powers perspective it was quite good that congress can impeach the president if he removes a good man. It was how congress kept the president from abusing the removal power. It was how the removal power was actually shared. Read his speech.
All that I say to that is it is a perfectly fine accomodation to have people testify about removals if the idea that improper removals is as an impeachable offense is out there.
But maybe it is better to make up our own rules about what is fine or not. And ignore these dead white males who spoke 200 years ago
Then you do not understand the concept and are willfully obtuse. Legislative Intent is determined first from the text of the document itself, because the legislature is presumed to mean what they actually write and pass. If that cannot be determined then and only then do the legislative debates have any point of reference; after more determination of how the statute interacts with other law and a Constitution, and whether the legislature expressed any intent to override preceding legislation.
Constitutional interpretation is “legislative interpretation writ large” because statutes are of lesser status than a constitutional provision, and statutes must be read with the legislature’s intent in mind, and the constitution of the body involved. Constitutional interpretation does not depend on the intent of statutary law. It is superior to it, hence ‘writ large’.
The concept of separation of power is repleat through the US Constitution, starting with the organization of the document and the first sections of each article. Details follow in the remaining sections. Merely because Madison made an argument does not mean that argument has any bearing on what that Constitutional section means, when the US Constitution is read as a whole.
Powers are to be separated, Congress is not to control the Executive outside of precisely stated instances. The houses of Congress control certain functions that impact and rein in the Executive. Nowhere in the document does it say that Congress can decide which Presidential political appointees may be removed. A textualist reading (as opposed to Madison’s opinion, which you brought up and which you admit has no bearing on the question) does not give any house of Congress a say in whether the President can fire a political appointee or legally inquire into the reason for the firing. To do so is an encroachment into the powers of the Executive, and something all who appreciate keeping political power from pooling too much into one place should abhor.
That is it. The firings are none of Congress’ g.d. business. No more than the appointment of any of Congress’ political appointees is any of the Executive’s g.d. business. Nor which law clerk a judge chooses to employee.
Separation of power. Be careful if you start excusing the crossing of those lines, because once you do, what is to keep your political opponent from doing the same?
As Sir Thomas Moore observed, we give the devil the benefit of the law so that we have it; we honor the perogatives of office, the separation of power, for politicians we dislike so that it will be there for those we agree with. If not, then you are on the road to tyranny, and tyrants turn on their supporters. It is in their nature.
But maybe it is better to make up our own rules about what is fine or not. And ignore these dead white males who spoke 200 years ago
That speaks for its self without requiring further response.
Agreed Christopher.
It is fine and dandy when those I politcally like ignore the text of the original document (which, considering the volumes Jeff G. has posted on authorial intent as determined from the author’s text seems a bit much to push here), but it is another thing when my political opponents do the same.
Myself, I refrain from crossing those lines, because I and mine may need the benefit of those lines at some time. Then again, since it is all open to what I want it to mean, why have the original document at all? Just do what you want to do today and tomorrow is another day.
And considereing what side Scarlett O’Hara was on in the US Civil War, that is an odd position for a liberal person to take.
The 2006 election must still be going to some heads that they adopt “l’etat, c’est lui” as a motto.
Now, why did I go to law school96 when I could just have made it all up as I went along?
“That speaks for its self without requiring further response.”
Hey, go ahead and ignore madison at your peril!
Lets just deal with this one, since I am obviously dealing with an expert:
“Nowhere in the document does it say that Congress can decide which Presidential political appointees may be removed. “
Thats wrong. Congress can impeach the president’s appointees.
And, as Madison pointed out, and the constitution allows, Congress can also impeach the president, if his misuse of the appointment and removal powers are impeachable.
What I think is happening is you’ve memorized “separation of powers” and that means the branches are separate. Thats not the case. It means “powers” are separate. Congress has the “sole power” of impeachment. But there are other ways to fire people. Its not just congress that can fire them.