BF2S Forums If its unconstitutional in NC why are Czars Constitutional for Obama?

Harmor wrote:

Judge: School governance 'unconstitutional'

Jack Betts wrote:

Judge Robert Hobgood ruled Friday that Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson's authority to run the state schools bureaucracy cannot be transferred to an executive officer answerable to the State Board of Education without a Constitutional amendment approved by the state's voters. The current governance arrangement, he ruled, is unconstitutional.

The ruling in effect means that Bill Harrison, appointed to the State Board of Education by Gov. Bev Perdue and named its chief executive officer to run schools on a day to day basis, works for Atkinson now. Atkinson's job, among other things, will be to carry out the policy of the State Board of Education.

That may throw governance of schools into some disarray once again; the state will appeal Hobgood's ruling. And it leaves before the General Assembly a question that has been there for many years: If it wants to put accountability for public school performance closer to the governor's office, it will have to do so through a Constitutional amendment that the state's voters must approve.

You know all 32 Czars Obama has answering only to him but not to Congress...well in the above article that a 'school czar' is unconstitutional without a Constitutional amendment.  If that's the case, could someone bring a case to the Supreme Court and get the same ruling for all these Obama Czars?

Depends on what the US Constitution says, but I'm pretty sure it's not too different.

Someone could try to get it to SCOTUS I guess, but it seems unlikely to happen.

I'm not really particularly optimistic that it would get the same basic ruling anyway.

Macbeth wrote:

The first Czar was of homeland security started back after 911. It really doesn't matter if the president has control over the agency anyway.

Uh, that's a member of the cabinet.

I don't remember if it was originally though.

There is a czar of homeland security as well as the cabi member. What I am saying is that is it foolish to bitch about obamas czars. Bush started doing them and it was fine then and now, the president still has control over whatever the czar is appointted to. It is just a person to manage something and report back to the president since he wouldn't be able to manage everything himself.

Ben Stein gives a good explanation.  (Yes we have to suffer with Glenn being there.  Sorry)

Last edited by Red Forman (2009-07-18 12:48:39)

Just from reading the OP, specifically, "If it wants to put accountability for public school performance closer to the governor's office, it will have to do so through a Constitutional amendment that the state's voters must approve", it sounds like it is the State not the US constitution that is the problem.  There is a huge difference between the two, which makes the argument against Obama irrelevant.  I'm not particularly for Czars, but there's nothing against them on the national level.

Last edited by mcgid1 (2009-07-18 19:29:52)

Harmor wrote:

Judge: School governance 'unconstitutional'

Jack Betts wrote:

Judge Robert Hobgood ruled Friday that Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson's authority to run the state schools bureaucracy cannot be transferred to an executive officer answerable to the State Board of Education without a Constitutional amendment approved by the state's voters. The current governance arrangement, he ruled, is unconstitutional.

The ruling in effect means that Bill Harrison, appointed to the State Board of Education by Gov. Bev Perdue and named its chief executive officer to run schools on a day to day basis, works for Atkinson now. Atkinson's job, among other things, will be to carry out the policy of the State Board of Education.

That may throw governance of schools into some disarray once again; the state will appeal Hobgood's ruling. And it leaves before the General Assembly a question that has been there for many years: If it wants to put accountability for public school performance closer to the governor's office, it will have to do so through a Constitutional amendment that the state's voters must approve.

You know all 32 Czars Obama has answering only to him but not to Congress...well in the above article that a 'school czar' is unconstitutional without a Constitutional amendment.  If that's the case, could someone bring a case to the Supreme Court and get the same ruling for all these Obama Czars?

Unconstitutional according to the NC state constitution. The US Constitution is another matter. Given that presidents have appointed special assistants and handed out executive orders for a while (Executive Order 1 was the Emancipation Proclamation) I don't think there is much of a case to be made on constitutional grounds.

EDIT: I should be more clear.

To challenge this on constitutional grounds would require someone to challenge the basis of executive orders in general which would be exceedingly difficult given the long history of such orders and the vagueness of the constitution itself. It gives the President the authority to execute the laws of the land, but doesn't really spell out the means by which he or she can/should use to carry out those duties. An argument could be made (certainly it's one that I would make) that the size and complexity of the US government requires such delegated authority. Constraining a president's power in such a way (we're not talking about obvious lawbreaking, all executives should be bound by the US Code) is inherently dangerous to good governance.

Last edited by Masques (2009-07-21 14:22:13)