Never was "it's the economy, stupid" more appropriate than with McCain.
Still waiting on today's video of McCain saying he would ask for the head of the "FEC" to resign over Wall Street meltdown. Republicans were making fun of Obama tripping over what AIG stands for, but McCain has had the week from hell. He's out of his league in this crisis.
Obama looking far more presidential this week than either the befuddled McCain or Palin the blowhard.
Never was "it's the economy, stupid" more appropriate than with McCain.
Still waiting on today's video of McCain saying he would ask for the head of the "FEC" to resign over Wall Street meltdown. Republicans were making fun of Obama tripping over what AIG stands for, but McCain has had the week from hell. He's out of his league in this crisis.
Obama looking far more presidential this week than either the befuddled McCain or Palin the blowhard.
In the wake of the Enron scandal in October 2002, Democratic congressional leaders Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., wrote a letter to President Bush and held a press conference, demanding that then-SEC commissioner Harvey Pitt resign.
"The Democratic leaders of the Senate and House urged President Bush in a letter to oust Mr. Pitt," wrote the New York Times.
Within a month, Pitt was gone.
Daschle is a key adviser to Obama.
In the wake of the Enron scandal in October 2002, Democratic congressional leaders Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., wrote a letter to President Bush and held a press conference, demanding that then-SEC commissioner Harvey Pitt resign.
"The Democratic leaders of the Senate and House urged President Bush in a letter to oust Mr. Pitt," wrote the New York Times.
Within a month, Pitt was gone.
Daschle is a key adviser to Obama.
of course she knows about energy. Havent you heard her say that we need to kill all the polar bears and drill in Alaska, even thou that oil wont even drop the price of gas 10 cents a gallon? I really cant wait until the debates, so the country will finally get to see what a friggin nutcase this lady is. She needs to just go back to the back woods and live out her life shooting moose and killing wolves from a plane.
of course she knows about energy. Havent you heard her say that we need to kill all the polar bears and drill in Alaska, even thou that oil wont even drop the price of gas 10 cents a gallon? I really cant wait until the debates, so the country will finally get to see what a friggin nutcase this lady is. She needs to just go back to the back woods and live out her life shooting moose and killing wolves from a plane.
Please keep on topic or start your own apples and oranges thread.
Please keep on topic or start your own apples and oranges thread.
McCain found it useless to blame Obama for Wall Street meltdown so he turned his attack on the alphabet.
McCain found it useless to blame Obama for Wall Street meltdown so he turned his attack on the alphabet.
The president can fire SEC commissioners. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated last month in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, "[m]embers of the [SEC] . . . are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause;
its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President." Thus, it is an error to suggest that the president cannot fire an SEC commissioner, including Chairman Cox. The president can SEC commissioners, at least for cause (a limitation subject to dispute, as described below), and he certainly can demote the SEC Chairman at pleasure.
The president can fire SEC commissioners. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated last month in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, "[m]embers of the [SEC] . . . are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause;
its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President." Thus, it is an error to suggest that the president cannot fire an SEC commissioner, including Chairman Cox. The president can SEC commissioners, at least for cause (a limitation subject to dispute, as described below), and he certainly can demote the SEC Chairman at pleasure.
"Please keep on topic or start your own apples and oranges thread."
Foward_Power are you reading my post reply's only???
"Please keep on topic or start your own apples and oranges thread."
Foward_Power are you reading my post reply's only???
Unlike the FTC Act, the statute creating the SEC (i.e., Securities Exchange Act of 1934) does not expressly limit the president's removal authority,and the Constitution itself certainly imposes no such limits upon the president; no court ever has come close to issuing such a broad rule.
In the absence of express statutory limits upon the president, some courts have concluded or assumed that at least some limitations apply to the president's removal of SEC commissioners.
In SEC v. Blinder (1988), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit assumed that "that it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner only for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.'" Two years later, in SEC v. Bilzerian, the federal trial court in the District of Columbia accepted a defendant's concession that the president could remove SEC commissioners for, at a minimum, "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." (Thus, the court held open the possibility that the president could fire SEC commissioners for lesser reasons.)
Most recently, in the Free Enterprise Fund decision quoted above, the D.C. Circuit stated that the president may remove SEC commissioners "for cause," citing Blinder and the Supreme Court's decision, in Wiener v. United States (1958), that the president could fire a member of a purely "adjudicatory body" such as the War Claims Commission only "for cause," and not "merely because he wanted his own appointees on such a Commission." In short, the president's removal authority over SEC commissioners remains untested--the subject of speculation but no precise judicial decision.
Unlike the FTC Act, the statute creating the SEC (i.e., Securities Exchange Act of 1934) does not expressly limit the president's removal authority,and the Constitution itself certainly imposes no such limits upon the president; no court ever has come close to issuing such a broad rule.
In the absence of express statutory limits upon the president, some courts have concluded or assumed that at least some limitations apply to the president's removal of SEC commissioners.
In SEC v. Blinder (1988), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit assumed that "that it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner only for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.'" Two years later, in SEC v. Bilzerian, the federal trial court in the District of Columbia accepted a defendant's concession that the president could remove SEC commissioners for, at a minimum, "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." (Thus, the court held open the possibility that the president could fire SEC commissioners for lesser reasons.)
Most recently, in the Free Enterprise Fund decision quoted above, the D.C. Circuit stated that the president may remove SEC commissioners "for cause," citing Blinder and the Supreme Court's decision, in Wiener v. United States (1958), that the president could fire a member of a purely "adjudicatory body" such as the War Claims Commission only "for cause," and not "merely because he wanted his own appointees on such a Commission." In short, the president's removal authority over SEC commissioners remains untested--the subject of speculation but no precise judicial decision.
Even assuming that the president's removal authority over SEC commissioners is limited to removal "for cause," or for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," such standards are not difficult to satisfy. According to the D.C. Circuit, "the Supreme Court has interpreted [such removal authority] broadly," such that Bilzerian's standards "could sustain removal . . . for any number of actual or perceived transgressions."
And the term "for cause" is all the broader: for example, Richard Pierce, one of the highest-regarded scholars of administrative law (and by no means a proponent of unfettered executive authority), wrote in 1988 that "for cause" places limits upon the president's removal authority: it "must include failure to comply with any valid policy decision made by the President[.]"
McCain's grievances against Chairman Cox, whether sound or unsound, fit those categories. This is not a case (by contrast to Wiener) where a president would attempt to remove an officer solely because the president wanted to put his own friends in office. McCain's grievances go to the question of whether Chairman Cox was "asleep at the switch" and thus partly culpable for an apparent Wall Street meltdown. At the very least, McCain alleges "neglect of duty," if not "inefficiency" or "malfeasance in office." He would fire Cox "for cause," not without cause.
Adam White is an attorney and writer in Washington, D.C.
Even assuming that the president's removal authority over SEC commissioners is limited to removal "for cause," or for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," such standards are not difficult to satisfy. According to the D.C. Circuit, "the Supreme Court has interpreted [such removal authority] broadly," such that Bilzerian's standards "could sustain removal . . . for any number of actual or perceived transgressions."
And the term "for cause" is all the broader: for example, Richard Pierce, one of the highest-regarded scholars of administrative law (and by no means a proponent of unfettered executive authority), wrote in 1988 that "for cause" places limits upon the president's removal authority: it "must include failure to comply with any valid policy decision made by the President[.]"
McCain's grievances against Chairman Cox, whether sound or unsound, fit those categories. This is not a case (by contrast to Wiener) where a president would attempt to remove an officer solely because the president wanted to put his own friends in office. McCain's grievances go to the question of whether Chairman Cox was "asleep at the switch" and thus partly culpable for an apparent Wall Street meltdown. At the very least, McCain alleges "neglect of duty," if not "inefficiency" or "malfeasance in office." He would fire Cox "for cause," not without cause.
Adam White is an attorney and writer in Washington, D.C.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.