Saturday, May 2, 2009
Reading can be a good thing
Dear Mr. President:
After reading next week's Senate Oversight Committee agenda, it became abundantly clear that you have not read any of the laws to which you are sworn to faithfully execute.
See, if you had bothered to actually read any of the laws, you would have learned that you need not seek Senate approval for your Chief of Staff, since he was already confirmed to that office by the previous Senate session. Section 3 of ASUN Public Law 75-50 provides, "The Chief of Staff shall continue in office during the tenure and at pleasure of the President."
That means once confirmed, so long as an administration does not change (which it didn't since you were re-elected), the Chief of Staff gets to remain in office until you fire him. Senate approval of this appointment is not required.
But, since you obviously have not read the laws, you wouldn't have known that. We suggest that you read the laws that you are constitutionally charged, and you swore an oath, to uphold. Or is your word (oath) meaningless?
Sincerely,
The Ladies and Gentlemen of
Vis Lupi Est Grex
Posts
President Reilly,
ReplyDeleteAs I know your current Chief of Staff is aware of this (and I'm sure you are), we didn't stress on rescheduling his meeting right away, because he is continuing to do the job. Thank you for taking time out to seek the Senate's approval, again. Not a big deal by any means.
Sean McDonald and friends- pick your battles, because this one is quite ridiculous.
Gracie Geremia
77th Session Speaker of the Senate
Associated Students of the University of Nevada
So did this Sean and Gracie date and it not end well? She seems to have it out for him.
ReplyDeleteThat would explain a lot, a messy breakup.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Gracie wrote that letter. It's missing her signature spelling and grammar errors.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he would rather have the senate approval and keep good ties than tell the senate fuck you i am keeping him. Maybe what you say isn't always right.
ReplyDeleteMartha (may I call you Martha?),
ReplyDeleteYes, I could be wrong.
So how would you respond to the fact that the President has not submitted a budget in compliance with the Senate's law?
Or has completely ignored the reserve requirement in that budget?
Or what about the fact that he has ignored the law regarding a book swap system?Does it not tell the Senate "fuck you" when the President shirks his duties, one of which is to execute the law as written? I'm guessing in your world ignoring the laws keeps the Senate on his good side. If that's the case, what a shame.
That is a completely different matter than the one I adressed. But yes, in some cases you are right, but not in all. There are legal aspects to things and then there are accepted norms. Have you not learned how the actual United States Congress works? If only it was purely law, but this is the real world.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, you may call me Martha
So when did start excusing ourselves for violations of public and constiutional law?
ReplyDeletewe*
ReplyDeleteWhen there were no consequences for committing violations. Or when we got too lazy to, you know, read the law.
ReplyDelete