An online debate at the Federalist Society site — a fascinating subject, and two first-rate debaters. Check it out; here’s the summary (paragraph breaks added):
Under the statute authorizing the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to “require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation.” By emergency rule promulgated without notice and comment, Secretary Geithner created the position of “Special Master for Compensation” or Pay Czar, and named Kenneth Feinberg to this position. In late October, Mr. Feinberg cut compensation for executives at seven large financial firms.In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, argues that Mr. Feinberg’s actions are unconstitutional because powers of the type entrusted to Mr. Feinberg may only be exercised by an officer of the United States, appointed in a manner consistent with the requirements of Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. This provision stipulates that all “Officers of the United States” shall be appointed by the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” with the exception that “the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
This forum will discuss the arguments put forth in Professor McConnell’s op-ed regarding the Pay Czar and the Appointments Clause. We have excerpted the key paragraphs of the ep-ed in the first post below.
troll_dc2 says:
What is the likelihood that someone whose pay was cut will challenge the reduction in federal court? Such a person seems to me to be the only one (along with members of his class) to have standing to sue.
Quote
November 20, 2009, 4:12 pmCrunchy Frog says:
I’d say pretty high, considering that the Appointments Clause seems to be one that is being taken seriously lately.
Quote
November 20, 2009, 4:24 pmJohnF says:
Surely if the czar lacks the authority to do this, Geithner can just do it all himself with a slight change in the emergency rules. There is no way they will subject a pay czar to Senate approval, I would think.
Quote
November 20, 2009, 4:34 pmCornellian says:
Somehow, I think even the Republican party will hesitate before getting behind a Wall St. banker complaining that his pay cut is unconstitutional. The optics just don’t look good.
Quote
November 20, 2009, 11:21 pmsitzpinkler says:
Speaking of “optics,” there’s some commentary here.
Quote
November 20, 2009, 11:47 pmGuy says:
I can really identify with the paradigm of unfavoring such stilted buzzwords. Perhaps if we make an ocular inspection of the pros and cons we can actualize a more cromulent approach.
Quote
November 21, 2009, 7:09 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
Quote
December 2, 2009, 10:25 pm