Conformation Is A must

1. 61

   Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years ago

   I understand most of you believe you know where I stand politically, that doesn't matter. I'm trying to get article writers to write on the above title.
   
   It may be a Democratic or Republican administration, do you not want anyone advising our President to go through a CONFORMATION process? You can call them a Czar, Advisor or anything else, they need to get confirmed.
   
   Please check my Hub on Conformation and join me. I admit getting citizens to do this had been difficult and this may be against a Hub restriction, but this is important to all of us.
   
   Forget your party affiliation, this is for our country. Richard Nixon started the Czar situation and that was against the Constitution.
   
   Look at the salaries and power these people have, why?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Supreme Court justices have to go through a confirmation process because they are appointed by one person - the President.
      
      i don't think the President of the United States has to go through a confirmation process - he was already appointed to his position by the American people when they voted for him.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree completely, with the following addition:
         and baptized by the popular vote.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            But it doesn't make him competent

            replyreport
            1. 0

               cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               well
               
               competent or incompetent, we voters put a president in office, exercising our privilege as citizens of this country. requiring the President to be confirmed sort of says our votes don't matter....

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  We voters? I didn't vote for him! Yeah confirming an elected President would mean our votes didn't count.

                  replyreport
            2. 62

               Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               A vote doesn't make anyone competent. A track record of evidence helps establish it.
               Neither does a confirmation, for that matter. Evidence of competence establishes a pattern that the person will continue to be competent unless they are lying.
               
               How strange that the public continues to be duped over and over on that one, eh?
               
               There is no fool-proof way to establish competence except for the present and past tense. You can predict it, but you can't guarantee it.
               
               But still, votes are a type of confirmation, despite the digression about competency. Seems redundant to add a "confirmation" on top of a vote, no?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I see you got the smackdown from hubpages, I guess they didn't appreciate the humor?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Protecting endangered species.

                     replyreport
                  2. 62

                     Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     If I got the smackdown, I must not have noticed or felt it, or found out about it.
                     Really. I have no idea what you're talking about.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        your doggie thread was pulled or whatever

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           No clue what you're on to. Don't know anything about a doggie thread...

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              sorry wrong person

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Quite all right. No harm done. :-)

                                 replyreport
                  3. 61

                     Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     All taken care of.

                     replyreport
         2. 61

            Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I'm talking about the Czars' and Advisors., don't you want them to be confirmed?

            replyreport
            1. 62

               Daniel Carterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Appointments should always be confirmed. Agreed. (Although the process is rather constipated and filled with divas and actors, much like some forum topics here. LOL)

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  That's all I was talking about.

                  replyreport
      2. 61

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         cosette,
         
         This was not meant for the President, this is for Czars' and Advisors.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            ooops. sorry about that.
            
            
            
            well in that case, i still say no. while their responsibilities are important, i don't think they are as grave as those of a Supreme Court Justice.

            replyreport
2. 79

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   Do you mean confirmation?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What do you think he meant?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ralwusposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think he meant what he wrote.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            subconciously?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ralwusposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, he's a contortionist.

               replyreport
      2. 61

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Tex, I needed that.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Freudian slip?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I went to high school with Freud, he was a dork like me. Do you want in on writing about this? It's a subject that should be difficult to not want in on.

         replyreport
   3. 61

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Spelling mistake, my fingers are having a meeting to correct these mistakes. Do you feel ALL Advisors should go through the process? Would you like to write on this? I'm trying to start a movement against this ever happening again, the party does not matter.

      replyreport
3. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   Louis Tully: Your Honor, ladies and gentleman of the audience, I don't think it's fair to call my clients frauds. Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don't blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you.
   [the courtroom is in bewildered silence]
   
   Egon: Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.
   
   From Ghostbusters II

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Very insightful.

      replyreport
4. 0

   ralwusposted 14 years ago

   I will need to speak with my attorney on this matter. It is above  my payscale to answer it myself.

   replyreport
5. 78

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

   This czar thing is not new. FDR was the first American president to appoint czars. Since then, some presidents(including W) have had a lot of czars whereas some presidents (Carter, Ford) had few or none.
   
   If you look at this list of the presidents' czars you see see they are almost evenly mixed between those who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Congress and those who are appointed by the president.
   I am sure a political scholar can explain why some are confirmed and some are appointed.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. … anch_czars

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Harvey Stelmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nixon was the first to state these appointments. Confirmation is all I am concerned with. Why should everyone need someone to explain these things? Aren't you smart enough to understand it, if it is written clearly? I think you are.

      replyreport
6. 78

   Mighty Momposted 14 years ago

   This czar thing is not new. FDR was the first American president to appoint czars. Since then, some presidents(including W) have had a lot of czars whereas some presidents (Carter, Ford) had few or none.
   
   If you look at this list of the presidents' czars you see see they are almost evenly mixed between those who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Congress and those who are appointed by the president.
   I am sure a political scholar can explain why some are confirmed and some are appointed.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. … anch_czars

   replyreport