I haven't read the articles. As a general rule, though, for interpretations of the law, a law review article is much more persuasive than an ABC news story.
And I agree... no need to use the names that have been used here. If I think it's in poor taste, then you KNOW it is.
I haven't read the articles. As a general rule, though, for interpretations of the law, a law review article is much more persuasive than an ABC news story.
That is true. However, look up the article. The money quote is entirely contained in a small footnote. This guy is relying on the dicta in one case that explicitly said that it was not the general rule and a footnote in a law review article that had more than 500 footnotes (seriously - the cited quote was in footnote 557). Not very persuasive.
The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.
At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.
In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: “As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.â€Â
“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,†no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.â€Â
The functions of the Commission with respect to choosing a Chairman from among the Commissioners composing the Commission are hereby transferred to the President.
It looks to me like a reorganization plan sent from Truman to the congress. It looks like that plan was submitted according to the Reorganization Act of 1949, you know, a law.
In other words, congress made a law that asked Truman for a reorganization plan, and this is him sending it to them for their approval. You know, because the president doesn't have the power to do jack and or shit. He's just executing the laws and decisions made by the legislature. As a president should.
Steve, it is very obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you would just read the quote you posted and thought about it, you would realize that it doesn't have anything to do with the President having the ability to fire the Chair of the SEC. It's as simple as that. It doesn't mean what you might think it means.
I know that you had Lyme disease and that it's very hard for you to comprehend what you read, but please, try again.
Well then, perhaps you could restate it for us in your own words and tell us how it supports your argument.
This is not a courtroom and I am not under cross examination. You are smart enough to understand what I have posted in defense of my argument.
Debate or concede defeat.
Steve, it is very obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. If you would just read the quote you posted and thought about it, you would realize that it doesn't have anything to do with the President having the ability to fire the Chair of the SEC.
I know that you had Lyme disease and that it's very hard for you to comprehend what you read, but please, try again.
You don't get any points for not being able to explain your argument. You say, "debate or concede defeat" but there is nothing to debate because you haven't explained yourself. There has been no "defeat" because you have done nothing to further your argument.
Finally, this argument that you're trying to make about the President being able to fire the Chair of the SEC failed many posts ago.
You don't get any points for not being able to explain your argument. You say, "debate or concede defeat" but there is nothing to debate because you haven't explained yourself. There has been no "defeat" because you have done nothing to further your argument.
Finally, this argument that you're trying to make about the President being able to fire the Chair of the SEC failed many posts ago.
Two posts, no rebuttal to the argument.
I explained my side of the argument very clearly when I made it. Perhaps you should go back and read that post.
I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible about this. This is what you wrote:
Sec. 3. Designation of Chairman
The functions of the Commission with respect to choosing a Chairman from among the Commissioners composing the Commission are hereby transferred to the President.
There is nothing in this quote that stands for the proposition that the President can fire the Chair of the SEC. It's not very hard to understand that. All you have to so is read the quote all the way through.
I'll hazard a guess that I've had just a little more experience in reading and understanding legislation than you have. If I ever want to know about pokemons, you'll be the first one I ask, but you are really embarrassing yourself trying to quote statutes that you don't understand.
I've shown that your arguments fail. I know that your brain damage prevents you from understanding logic, so I'm going to stand by what's already been said before someone complains that we're spamming the board. Please try to stop making a spectacle of yourself.
I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible about this. This is what you wrote:
Sec. 3. Designation of Chairman
The functions of the Commission with respect to choosing a Chairman from among the Commissioners composing the Commission are hereby transferred to the President.
There is nothing in this quote that stands for the proposition that the President can fire the Chair of the SEC. It's not very hard to understand that. All you have to so is read the quote all the way through.
I'll hazard a guess that I've had just a little more experience in reading and understanding legislation than you have. If I ever want to know about pokemons, you'll be the first one I ask, but you are really embarrassing yourself trying to quote statutes that you don't understand.
I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible about this. This is what you wrote:
Sec. 3. Designation of Chairman
The functions of the Commission with respect to choosing a Chairman from among the Commissioners composing the Commission are hereby transferred to the President.
There is nothing in this quote that stands for the proposition that the President can fire the Chair of the SEC. It's not very hard to understand that. All you have to so is read the quote all the way through.
I'll hazard a guess that I've had just a little more experience in reading and understanding legislation than you have. If I ever want to know about pokemons, you'll be the first one I ask, but you are really embarrassing yourself trying to quote statutes that you don't understand.
Do you even know what my argument is?
No, he doesn't, because you never made an argument regarding this law. You said exactly what is quoted above, with no explanation, and when asked for clarification stated your argument was self-evident then demanded a rebuttal. Do you see what is wrong in this picture?
Even though Murdoch owns the WSJ, I think he has a lot less influence over it than he does his other media outlets. It's the fucking Wall Street Journal. Smart people read it, and they will know if he starts to fuck with it. The value in the WSJ is its credibility, you can't turn it into crazy tabloid.
The bit about Murdoch wasn't really meant to degrade it to tabloid level, but rather to show the conservative slant which I also heard from many sources the editorial pages in the WSJ have.
No, he doesn't, because you never made an argument regarding this law. You said exactly what is quoted above, with no explanation, and when asked for clarification stated your argument was self-evident then demanded a rebuttal. Do you see what is wrong in this picture?
The chairman serves at the pleasure of the President. Senate confirmation is only required when someone new is being made a commissioner.
The President can "fire" the chairman at any time and replace him with another commissioner. He cannot remove a commissioner from the committee.
I have yet to see a valid rebuttal that addresses what I said. I have backed up my argument with an article written by a UCLA Law professor and US Code Title 15 Chapter 2B § 78d that states the President has the power to choose who is the chairperson. I have more "legal" links to back up my claim. I have seen no "legal" links to discount my claim.
The only thing I will add is that the President can try to remove a commissioner but he has to have cause to do so. Removing the chair does not require cause.
have backed up my argument with an article written by a UCLA Law professor and US Code Title 15 Chapter 2B § 78d that states the President has the power to choose who is the chairperson. I have more "legal" links to back up my claim. I have seen no "legal" links to discount my claim.
The only thing I will add is that the President can try to remove a commissioner but he has to have cause to do so. Removing the chair does not require cause.
This is the last time I am going to say this, so please read carefully. As I said in an earlier post, I actually read the cases and the law review article that were cited in your article. The first case specifically said that it was dealing with a unique situation and that it should not be read as espousing a general rule.
This is what the case says from the quote in your article:
The Act does not expressly give to the President the power to remove a commissioner. However, for the purposes of this case, we accept appellants’ assertions in their brief, that it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
See how it carefully say, "for purposes of this case"? It is telling you that they're talking about the particular case in front of them at the time, and that they are not espousing a general rule.
The other cases cited say things like "the power to remove Commissioners belongs to the President,†but also admit that the “power is is commonly understood to be limited to removal for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." or " While the Act does not expressly give the President the power to remove a commissioner, it is generally accepted that the President may remove a commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" Those cases likewise do not state a general rule that the President may remove the Chair of the SEC.
Further, all of these cases are from the federal circuit, not the Supreme Court. The rule espoused by the Supreme Court quoted by my article that the President does NOT have the power to remove the Chair of the SEC is controlling.
Your article quoted the first case a second time, but it turns out that quote was dicta. It was a judge speculating on what the rule might be in another case, but, as stated earlier, the case itself says that it does not state the general rule. Thus, the case cited is not the law.
Law review articles are not the law either, although they may be persuasive. The law review article cited wasn't about the President's power to fire anyone. The quote that was cited comes from footnote number 557 in that article where the author says, "BTW, I believe that the President might be able to fire the chair of the SEC". You can see that from the citation, Harvey L. Pitt & Karen L. Shapiro, Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the Next Decade, 7 Yale J. on Reg. 149, 280 n.557 (1990). That "n.557" means that the quote is located in footnote number 557. A quote dug from a lone footnote is barely even persuasive. It is certainly not the law.
The statute you cited says that the President may choose a Chair. It doesn't say anything about the President's power to remove the Chair.
This should be an end to this point. As I also stated earlier, I have some fifteen years of experience reading and understanding law, not as a hobby, but as my job. Furthermore, I don't have brain damage that makes it difficult for me to understand things that I have read, unlike you. You have admitted that you have brain damage from Lyme Disease and that this brain damage makes it difficult for you to comprehend what you read. Even if you haven't had such brain damage, you haven't had fifteen years of experience reading law as part of your job. So let's please just admit that this little argument is over. Or, if you want to keep fighting, please just email me or IM me or something.
25. We note that Morrison is predicated in part upon Humphrey, which stands generally for the proposition that Congress can, without violating Article II, authorize an independent agency to bring civil law enforcement actions where the President's removal power was restricted to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Morrison teaches that the real question to be answered is whether the removal restrictions impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty. It is a matter of fundamental law that the Constitution assigns to Congress the power to designate duties of particular officers. The President is not obligated under the Constitution to exercise absolute control over our government executives. The President is not required to execute the laws; he is required to take care they be executed faithfully. The President has the power to appoint the commissioners; he has the power to choose the chairman of the SEC who has broad powers concerning the operation and administration of the commission; the chairman serves at the President's pleasure; and, the President has the power to remove a commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. We conclude these powers give the President sufficient control over the commissioners to insure the securities laws are faithfully executed and the removal restrictions do not impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty.
If the President has the power to choose the chairman of the SEC and the chairman serves at the pleasure of the President than the President can replace the current chair, thereby removing the old chair.
Are you saying professor Bainbridge is wrong?
Stephen Bainbridge is the William D. Warren Professor of Law at UCLA, where he currently teaches Business Associations, Unincorporated Business Associations, and Advanced Corporation Law. In past years, he has also taught Corporate Finance, Securities Regulation, Mergers and Acquisitions, and seminars on corporate governance. Professor Bainbridge previously taught at the University of Illinois Law School (1988-1996), where the Class of 1990 gave him the “Best Instructor Award.†He has also taught at Harvard Law School as the Joseph Flom Visiting Professor of Law and Business (2000-2001), La Trobe University in Melbourne (2005 and 2007) and at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo (1999).
If the President lacks the power to replace the chairman how do incoming Presidents appoint new chairmen? What is the legal process for removing an SEC chairman?
Why do you guys keep talking about this? Cox was going to leave when Bush's term ends anyway. He declared that a long time ago. I think this is an even better gaffe. What's even better is that you are not discussing that McCain is basically just using Cox as a Scapegoat.
*Sigh*. Read this from your Blinder case one more time:
The Act does not expressly give to the President the power to remove a commissioner. However, for the purposes of this case, we accept appellants’ assertions in their brief, that it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
They specifically say that they are accepting your proposed rule for this case and this case only. It's not the law. There's an end to it.
If you're so enamored with Bainbridge, maybe you should read this post from that same blog wherein he calls McCain's complaints about Cox "moronic".
Finally, people like Mr. 99 there, are starting to complain. I've told you why you were wrong. It's over. If you want to whisper another comment or if you want to email or IM me, then please do so. Please be considerate of the other people here who really do not care about this argument any longer if they ever did before.
*Sigh*. Read this from yourBlindercase one more time:
The Act does not expressly give to the President the power to remove a commissioner. However, for the purposes of this case, we accept appellants’ assertions in their brief, that it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
They specifically say that they are accepting your proposed rulefor this case and this case only. It's not the law. There's an end to it.
If you're so enamored with Bainbridge, maybe you should readthispost from that same blog wherein he calls McCain's complaints about Cox "moronic".
Finally, people like Mr. 99 there, are starting to complain. I've told you why you were wrong. It's over. If you want to whisper another comment or if you want to email or IM me, then please do so. Please be considerate of the other people here who really do not care about this argument any longer if they ever did before.I'm not arguing about the complete removal of a commissioner from the SEC. I'm arguing that the President has the power to replace the SEC chairman with another commissioner.
I'm also not arguing whether or not Cox should be removed.
You have one chance left. Either post links to the legal method of replacing the chairman of the SEC that refutes my argument or concede defeat on this issue.
Don't post about removing commissioners from the SEC (not an argument I am making). Don't post about whether or not Cox should be removed (not an argument I am making).
This argument is not about McCain, it never has been. It is about the procedure in place for the President to choose who is the chairman of the SEC.
If you can prove me wrong in the next post I will gladly concede defeat to you. If you can not I will claim victory.
That's it! He says he wants to freeze science funding to check all the programs for waste. His favorite example is a study on bear migration and breeding habits. Does he not understand that without this information bears will eventually go extinct, to properly manage them we need to know this information. Nope, Sorry, I don't want the executive branch or congress going making the decisions on who gets funding or not, because they don't know what they are talking about.
Anyhow, not like McCain had the Science vote anyhow, but he's completely screwed it up. Welcome to the dark ages! (I'm over dramatizing for fun).
Or are you. Seriously, I think you aren't that far off. McCain's as stupid as the Christians were back then. I doubt they will find out the efficiency of every science program, since some most likely don't have any effect in only a year or two, how would you determine its efficiency then? Oh yes, perhaps look at the past, then why cut funding?!
SERIOUSLY!
Next year's federal budget may not contain a penny more for research and education if Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) is elected U.S. president and has his way with Congress.
And that's the first sentence. No money for research, great, no solution to the darned energy crisis. No money for education, well, the change might not be noticeable, but there'll be even more uneducated idiots running through the USA then.
Comments
And I agree... no need to use the names that have been used here. If I think it's in poor taste, then you KNOW it is.
Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter.
So I'm going to trust you on this one, Joe. Don't burn me!
In other words, congress made a law that asked Truman for a reorganization plan, and this is him sending it to them for their approval. You know, because the president doesn't have the power to do jack and or shit. He's just executing the laws and decisions made by the legislature. As a president should.
Debate or concede defeat.
I know that you had Lyme disease and that it's very hard for you to comprehend what you read, but please, try again.
Finally, this argument that you're trying to make about the President being able to fire the Chair of the SEC failed many posts ago.
I explained my side of the argument very clearly when I made it. Perhaps you should go back and read that post.
I'll hazard a guess that I've had just a little more experience in reading and understanding legislation than you have. If I ever want to know about pokemons, you'll be the first one I ask, but you are really embarrassing yourself trying to quote statutes that you don't understand.
I've shown that your arguments fail. I know that your brain damage prevents you from understanding logic, so I'm going to stand by what's already been said before someone complains that we're spamming the board. Please try to stop making a spectacle of yourself.
The only thing I will add is that the President can try to remove a commissioner but he has to have cause to do so. Removing the chair does not require cause.
This is what the case says from the quote in your article: See how it carefully say, "for purposes of this case"? It is telling you that they're talking about the particular case in front of them at the time, and that they are not espousing a general rule.
The other cases cited say things like "the power to remove Commissioners belongs to the President,†but also admit that the “power is is commonly understood to be limited to removal for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." or " While the Act does not expressly give the President the power to remove a commissioner, it is generally accepted that the President may remove a commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" Those cases likewise do not state a general rule that the President may remove the Chair of the SEC.
Further, all of these cases are from the federal circuit, not the Supreme Court. The rule espoused by the Supreme Court quoted by my article that the President does NOT have the power to remove the Chair of the SEC is controlling.
Your article quoted the first case a second time, but it turns out that quote was dicta. It was a judge speculating on what the rule might be in another case, but, as stated earlier, the case itself says that it does not state the general rule. Thus, the case cited is not the law.
Law review articles are not the law either, although they may be persuasive. The law review article cited wasn't about the President's power to fire anyone. The quote that was cited comes from footnote number 557 in that article where the author says, "BTW, I believe that the President might be able to fire the chair of the SEC". You can see that from the citation, Harvey L. Pitt & Karen L. Shapiro, Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the Next Decade, 7 Yale J. on Reg. 149, 280 n.557 (1990). That "n.557" means that the quote is located in footnote number 557. A quote dug from a lone footnote is barely even persuasive. It is certainly not the law.
The statute you cited says that the President may choose a Chair. It doesn't say anything about the President's power to remove the Chair.
This should be an end to this point. As I also stated earlier, I have some fifteen years of experience reading and understanding law, not as a hobby, but as my job. Furthermore, I don't have brain damage that makes it difficult for me to understand things that I have read, unlike you. You have admitted that you have brain damage from Lyme Disease and that this brain damage makes it difficult for you to comprehend what you read. Even if you haven't had such brain damage, you haven't had fifteen years of experience reading law as part of your job. So let's please just admit that this little argument is over. Or, if you want to keep fighting, please just email me or IM me or something.
Are you saying professor Bainbridge is wrong? If the President lacks the power to replace the chairman how do incoming Presidents appoint new chairmen?
What is the legal process for removing an SEC chairman?
What's even better is that you are not discussing that McCain is basically just using Cox as a Scapegoat.
If you're so enamored with Bainbridge, maybe you should read this post from that same blog wherein he calls McCain's complaints about Cox "moronic".
Finally, people like Mr. 99 there, are starting to complain. I've told you why you were wrong. It's over. If you want to whisper another comment or if you want to email or IM me, then please do so. Please be considerate of the other people here who really do not care about this argument any longer if they ever did before.
If you're so enamored with Bainbridge, maybe you should readthispost from that same blog wherein he calls McCain's complaints about Cox "moronic".
Finally, people like Mr. 99 there, are starting to complain. I've told you why you were wrong. It's over. If you want to whisper another comment or if you want to email or IM me, then please do so. Please be considerate of the other people here who really do not care about this argument any longer if they ever did before.I'm not arguing about the complete removal of a commissioner from the SEC. I'm arguing that the President has the power to replace the SEC chairman with another commissioner.
I'm also not arguing whether or not Cox should be removed.
You have one chance left. Either post links to the legal method of replacing the chairman of the SEC that refutes my argument or concede defeat on this issue.
Don't post about removing commissioners from the SEC (not an argument I am making).
Don't post about whether or not Cox should be removed (not an argument I am making).
This argument is not about McCain, it never has been. It is about the procedure in place for the President to choose who is the chairman of the SEC.
If you can prove me wrong in the next post I will gladly concede defeat to you. If you can not I will claim victory.
That's it! He says he wants to freeze science funding to check all the programs for waste. His favorite example is a study on bear migration and breeding habits. Does he not understand that without this information bears will eventually go extinct, to properly manage them we need to know this information. Nope, Sorry, I don't want the executive branch or congress going making the decisions on who gets funding or not, because they don't know what they are talking about.
Anyhow, not like McCain had the Science vote anyhow, but he's completely screwed it up. Welcome to the dark ages! (I'm over dramatizing for fun).
SERIOUSLY!And that's the first sentence. No money for research, great, no solution to the darned energy crisis. No money for education, well, the change might not be noticeable, but there'll be even more uneducated idiots running through the USA then.