Congress

Congressman Proposes Automatic Dismissal for Federal Employees Refusing to Answer Congress' Questions; Good Luck With That!

2-page bill unlikely to be passed into law

|

you're fired! just kidding, here's a paid vacation instead
C-SPAN

Sound like a good idea? Via the Hill:

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) on Thursday proposed legislation that would require federal workers to be fired if they don't answer questions from Congress.

The bill is a reaction to Lois Lerner, the IRS official who refused to answer questions about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups during a congressional hearing last month. Lerner told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, "I have not done anything wrong," then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the advice of her lawyers.

Lerner was asked to leave the hearing, but she left Republicans fuming and prompted calls for her resignation and the resignation of any official who refuses to answer questions from Congress. She is now on paid administrative leave.

Firing federal workers who don't answer Congress' questions would certainly be a better idea than providing them with a paid vacation. The bill would also allow three-quarters of a Congressional committee to fire a federal worker if they felt the worker provided willfully false testimony. You can read the 2 page (!) bill here (pdf). There are probably some Constitutional issues with members of the legislative branch firing employees of the executive branch, but the bill has very little chance of actually passing anyway. Nevertheless, it's nice to see Congress hasn't turned into a complete potted plant just yet. We'll see if this one goes anywhere.

Advertisement

NEXT: Hershey Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing in Canada

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It will go nowhere.

    1. Easy removal. Every damned one of them should be easy to remove. I mean, like I think one is looking at me funny when I watch him on TV, and out he goes.

    2. It has to go nowhere. If it became law, they could call Lerner back up and she would have to testify or be fired. And no way are they going to let that happen.

      1. That’s assuming the law would apply ex-post facto. In cases already brought, that would be problematic, although as administrative, not penal jeopardy issue, it MAY fly

        1. Just have someone incorporate here – then she won’t have any rights whatsoever.

          Right Tony?

          Tony?

          Hmm, doesn’t seem to be here.

        2. How do you figure? She isn’t being fired for not testilying in the past, she’s being fired for not testilying following passage of the law.

      2. Better fix —

        Overturn J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, reinstate nondelegation doctrine and watch most of life’s problems magically disappear.

  2. Firing federal workers who don’t answer Congress’ questions would certainly be a better idea than providing them with a paid vacation.

    Federal employees still have Fifth Amendment rights, they can’t be compelled to testify. How is it constitutional to threaten them with termination for exercising their rights before a Congressional hearing?

    The bill would also allow three-quarters of a Congressional committee to fire a federal worker if they felt the worker provided willfully false testimony.

    That’s a much better idea.

    1. Sure you have 5th Amendment rights. But those rights only apply to criminal cases. The 5th Amendment keeps out out of jail. It doesn’t keep you from being fired. Indeed, you don’t have 5th Amendment rights in many administrative hearings because they are not criminal. The federal government has every right to tell its employees that if they don’t cooperate with Congress, they will lose their jobs.

      1. In a real sense, Congress is their boss.

        1. You couldn’t convict her based on a statement you obtained at the threat of her job. But you could totally fire her. At this point, the truth and firing her is more important than sending her to jail.

          1. Exactly. They can and should impeach her. And yes, they can do that.

          2. The President could fire her for that, but I don’t think Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so.

            1. Congress has constitutional oversight authority. Not answering questions can be viewed as interfering with that authority. As such, I believe it could be argued that congress therefore has the authority to fire a non-compliant federal employee. I’m not saying that argument would necessarily prevail, but I believe it’s a valid argument.

              1. They could bring her up on contempt charges, or impeach, but I don’t believe they can fire a member of the executive without CEO consent.

        2. In a real sense, Congress is their boss.

          Wanting Congress as your boss is a fireable offense in itself.

          Certainly it’s cause for psychological failure. Who in their right mind would want to work for Maxine Waters?

      2. There is more than the 5th amendment. There is due process, etc.

        1. Due process doesn’t apply to your job idiot.

        2. She might be scum, but putting her on the disposition matrix is a little harsh.

      3. Buuuut, unless you got it in writing, anything provided to the administrative hearing can be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding and so the 5th amendment is back on.

        As an example of what I’m talking about – sometimes in accident investigations the military will openly wave is right to use witness statements in criminal proceedings – this is done when its considered more important to find out what happened and how to avoid it in the future than to pin the blame on someone.

    2. They are being asked to supply information regarding their capacity as public employees. Asking, ‘Ms. Lerner, did you overstep your bounds as a public officer under the law in which your bureau is chartered?’ is congressional oversight in which she is obstructing by not answering, and I don’t see how she has a fifth amendment case. It’s different from asking, ‘Ms. Lerner is your husband’s mistress you have gagged and bound in your basement being treated well?’, where she is being asked to incriminate herself in her private capacity as a citizen.

      1. Because overstepping your authority under color of law is a crime. To answer in the affirmative to your question provides evidence of a crime she committed.

    3. Yes, you have a fifth amendment right to not incriminate yourself.

      Last I checked, there’s no constitutional right to a government job.

      1. Take it up with the author. *he* was the one who said there are probably constitutional issues with a legislative branch member firing an executive branch member for DARING not to lick his fucking boots.

        Reasonoid hate for fed employees is so severe that they support the toadying boot licking process here, wherein a congress critter could fire an executive branch member for daring not to be a fucking peon bootlicker

        1. replace DARING not to lick his fucking boots with “requesting information important to his constituents and vital to Congressional oversight” and you’re a little more on-point.

          Your union colors are showing, assmunch.

          1. No, my respect for due process and the constitution is showing.

            1. Show me where in the world, other than in a union, that due process exists as it relates to job security.

              1. Exactly. I’m pretty sure if my boss was questioning me about a fuckup–even if it wasn’t mine–and I pled the 5th, I’d be shown the door immediately.

                That does not mean I’d be carted off and thrown in jail. That’s where the due process comes in.

        2. Personally I’m thinking that the legislative branch needs to do more head-cutting whenever the executive doesn’t lick its boots.

          I know that might not sit to well with you, being part of the executive, even if down at the city level, but the legislative is the branch that is supposed to determine the direction the nation is going. The executive just took over because the other fuckers were asleep all the time.

    4. Federal employees still have Fifth Amendment rights, they can’t be compelled to testify. How is it constitutional to threaten them with termination for exercising their rights before a Congressional hearing?

      Last I checked, termination != criminal prosecution. If an employer, any employer, wants to terminate an employee for not being forthright with them, they should be free to do so. Their 5A rights are not being challenged at all.

      That said, if they’re under oath and their employer is questioning them, they should be free to exercise their 5A rights and not fear prosecution for doing so.

      Prosecution? No.
      Termination? Yes.

      1. “You’re terminated, fucker.”

        1. Take it up with the author epi and sloopy, he was the one who rightly conceded there probably are constitutional issues. Among other things, we have issues of due process AND locus of control (congress critter firing executive branch appointee)

          1. The author never brought up any potential constitutional issues that involved due process. You just made that shit up and got your dumb ass called on it by about every poster on here.

            “There’s lies, damn lies and a policeman’s word.”
            -sloopyinca

            1. Sloopy, there are few things more certain than my honesty and ethics. So spare me. I have 20 yrs of spotless service to include citations for bravery and service WAY beyond the standard call of duty.

              I am fiercely proud of my service whereas your service to your fellow man is what exactly? I’ve taken rounds fired at me in service of my fellow man and you’ve done what?

              So spare me your bullshit attacks.

              1. You served the hell out of that kid whose life you ruined for engaging in voluntary transactions with willing participants. And you’ve served the hell out of the officers I know you’ve seen commit crimes while in the line of duty but did not arrest them on the spot the way you would have a “civilian” that did the same thing.

              2. I have 20 yrs of spotless service

                Just like the FBI, amirite?

              3. So, Dunphy, how many dogs did you shoot?

              4. But what (to return this to some semblance of civility) would prevent Congress from de-authorizing a particular employee’s salary from the budget of an executive branch agency? Clearly all expenditures are the exclusive province of the legislative branch.

          2. You know what – now that I think of it – these guys are “at-will” employees and should be fireable at will, for any reason whatsoever.

            The higher up the food chain you are the quicker you should be shown the door.

            I don’t think they have or should have due process for keeping a job, except whatever due process the employer feels like giving.

            This whole concept of people not being able to be fired except for very explicit (and previously agreed) upon conditions is crap.

            1. Basically I’m saying that she should be able to plead the fifth and she should be able to be fired (or *asked to resign*) for doing so.

      2. Terminate. . .their command?

      3. Yep, the 5th reads — nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. It is not about criminal sanction when your behavior as a public employee is being reviewed by those responsible for keeping your actions bound to the law. Otherwise, there is no real oversight, and allowing them to stretch the fifth beyond its intent for their benefit expands their power and reach.

        1. As an individual, these people should and do have all of the rights of Americans and human beings.

          As political officials with absurd amounts of power, they have no fucking rights.

          Those two things are not in conflict. I can eject them from their job on a whim, but I can’t lock them up without due process of law. Or, if I’m the president, without drone process.

          1. You’re right. I have no problem with them being immune to prosecution if compelled to give testimony, as the later serves a greater public good than getting some fink behind the slammer.

      4. Prosecution? Yes, for crimes against the constitution and acting as a subversive element within the USG. She should be tried for treason.

  3. It will go nowhere. It is funny how Lerner’s taking the 5th was just ignored by the media. Isn’t that prima facia evidence that at least one high official at the IRS committed a crime? Just because a court of law can’t drawn an adverse inference doesn’t mean the court of public opinion shouldn’t.

    Lerner retained legal council. You can only invoke the 5th Amendment if you feel your testimony will implicate you in a crime. Therefore, her lawyer concluded she was guilty of a crime. Moreover, she didn’t even properly invoke. The moment she said “I have done nothing wrong” she waived her rights. She should be sitting in a federal detention facility right now for contempt of Congress.

    1. “You can only invoke the 5th Amendment if you feel your testimony will implicate you in a crime. Therefore, her lawyer concluded she was guilty of a crime.”

      I presume that she is guilty, but not simply because she took the 5th. Innocent people can, and often should, do that. If there are incriminating circumstances which a prosecutor can use against you, no matter how innocent you are, then you can use the 5th.

      The reason I suspect she’s guilty is that she was responsible for admitted abuses and persecution of conservative groups. But I can envision a scenario in which some hapless witness is being set up by ambitious prosecutors (eg, to score political points or to cover up for higher-ups) and Congress wants to elicit admissions which make the target look guilty based on the prosecution theory. Say that the witness was in Peoria to visit a relative and some perjured witness claims that, while in Peoria, the witness took part in some evil conspiracy. While it might be in the witness’s interest to tell the true story, they are also entitled to take the 5th if asked about being in Peoria. The choice is theirs, not Congress’s.

  4. “Firing federal workers who don’t answer Congress’ questions would certainly be a better idea than providing them with a paid vacation. The bill would also allow three-quarters of a Congressional committee to fire a federal worker if they felt the worker provided willfully false testimony. You can read the 2 page (!) bill here (pdf). There are probably some Constitutional issues with members of the legislative branch firing employees of the executive branch, but the bill has very little chance of actually passing anyway. ”

    so, there are “probably constitutional issues” but apparently that’s not a big deal with reasonoids when it comes to due process and employee rights. Sure, the Obama admin violates the constitution in regards to citizen rights etc., privacy, etc. and that’s a TRAGEDY, but when it comes to federal employees (and of course cops), it’s not a big deal to violate the constitution. What a fucking disgusting double standard, but typical.

    1. Shut up you half wit. The 5th Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings. You don’t have it in administrative ones.

      1. FAlse. It also applies to due process.

        furthermore, reason article is CONCEDING THERE ARE “probably constitutional issues”, so I’m stipulating to that.

        hth

        ad hom’s, aside, I knew the TRUE HALF wits would ignore the issue which is that the article CONCEDES there are probably constitutional issues. With OTHER issues, they don’t play favoritism towards only certain constitutional issues. Shades of ACLU here… the 4th, 5th, 6th and 1st matter, but not the 2nd.

        1. There are probably some Constitutional issues with members of the legislative branch firing employees of the executive branch

          Don’t be disingenuous. The Constitutional issue the author mentions is whether or not Congress can fire executive branch employees, not anything to do with the fifth amendment. And saying there are “issues” is not the same as saying that something is definitely unconstitutional.

          1. Seems to me Congress could create administrative regulations that govern the civil service, a la the UCMJ for the military. Again, never happen, but I don’t think there are constitutional issues with the creation of employment regulations.

        2. There are probably some Constitutional issues with members of the legislative branch firing employees of the executive branch, but the bill has very little chance of actually passing anyway

          The article only “CONCEDED” to a single constitutional issue – that of employee termination. As to that issue, the Congress certainly has the power to impeach, as well as defunding

          1. Hey, he’s a cop. He’s used to being dishonest and sneaky when it comes to making his point/getting his collar. Hell, he even admitted to committing a criminal conspiracy to get a pharmacist to break the law in order to get a mean old kid off the streets for engaging in voluntary transactions.

            1. I’m used to being beyond reproach and that stupid dog don’t hunt. There was no criminal conspiracy as the judge, prosecutor and even defense attorney conceded. You can keep playing that stupid card all you want, but it just makes you look like a petulant moron.

              I’ll stand behind my record of exemplary public service, to include citations for bravery/valor an d going WAY beyond the call of duty to protect my fellow man, when attacked by nobody’s like you.

              You have done what exactly in furtherance of protecting your fellow man?

              I thought so.

              There is no dishonesty and sneakiness whatsoever. I’m beyond reproach

              hth

              1. I’m used to being beyond reproach and that stupid dog don’t hunt.

                [citation required]

              2. There was no criminal conspiracy as the judge, prosecutor and even defense attorney conceded.

                There was never any concession, as you had stated before that the defense attorney never even brought it up. So are you lying now or were you lying then?

                Sorry, but an inept defense is not an exoneration of your criminal behavior as it relates to evidentiary procedure and deceptively getting a medical care professional to break HIPAA law.

        3. FAlse. It also applies to due process.

          No it doesn’t you half-wit.

          Your illegitimate union contract, not the constitution, gives you 5th amendment rights during employment investigations and those ‘rights’ can be revoked by the legislature by changing the state’s public policy, at any time.

    2. See John’s comment at 3:22.

      1. 3:25 also works.

        1. No, it doesn’t. THe article CONCEDES “there are probably constitutional issues”

          hth

          1. Refer to Fatty’s and my response above.

            1. I do. And if you can’t see the constitutional issues, I can’t help ya!

              The blinders are on when it comes to loathing of federal employees to the extent that it’s ok for a congress critter to FIRE an executive branch appointee for daring not to lick his boots?

              fucking amazing double standard

              1. So, you continually misquote the author’s statement throughout this board, and now you want to condescendingly move the goalposts to include any constitutional issues? Is that how you treat the people on your beat? You can’t even concede the simple fact that you continually misquoted the author?

        2. I prefer the 3:25 m’self.

    3. No, out here in the real world, if you refuse to talk to the boss because you think it might get you into trouble, you get fired. It’s only cops and other government workers who get away with that stuff.

      1. Again , the article says “there are probably constitutional issues”

        so, is the author wrong?

        I’m just piggybacking on what HE said. “constitutional issues”

        hth

        1. See my reply to you above.

      2. Congress is not the “boss” of an executive branch official.

        1. The 16th amendment suggests otherwise

          1. At least where the IRS is concerned.

    4. Constitutional rights apply to “the people”, since when are federal workers part of “the people”?

      1. Again, the article stipulates that there are “probably constitutional issues”

        Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

        1. No, I have a problem with the federal government. Besides, to put a serious tone on my commentary, I do believe the first responses to your comment are correct. If this is an administrative hearing, 5th amendment has fuck all to do with anything.

          For instance, if my boss or management calls me into an office asking questions of me, if I refuse to go in, or answer their questions, they can fire me.

        2. Do you have a problem with quoting the correct verbiage?

          1. Fuck him. He knows he’s using sleight of hand and he knows he got called the fuck out on it.

            He must be out on another medical leave (compliments of the WA taxpayers) and getting his trolling started early.

            What is it this time, big boy? I hope it’s the AIDS. We know what a hard life you rockers from the 80’s lived while on your world tours. Surfers, too. Maybe that super-strain finally broke down the code to your super-immune system and you’ve gone full-blown on us.

    5. Okay, now I know you’re trolling cause no one is that stupid.

    6. o, there are “probably constitutional issues” but apparently that’s not a big deal with reasonoids when it comes to due process and employee rights.

      Why would you feel the need to mention those things so closely together when they have nothing to do with each other?

      Oh, that’s right. It’s because you’re a union cop whose due process rights and employee rights are one and the same thing, what with your separate set of evidence collection for an officer under suspicion of a crime in the line of duty or your interview process where you’re afforded several protections and a schedule for interviews not afforded to us peons.

      1. It’s called due process and civil rights. And I know that chaps your hide when it comes to cops, but unlike you, I’m not a cafe constitutionalist. i believe the constitution matters, as does due process, not that it only matters when it’s innocent ‘civilians’ and not cops

        Some of us care across the board about constitutional rights.

        And again, the article concedes, there are “probably constitional issues”

        As for the seperate protections, we also have seperate duties, that make them reasonable. We are the ones expected to go TOWARDS danger and use deadly force when appropriate. We don’t have the option of just going “fuck it” and walking away, like a “civilian”. You are going to REQUIRE officers to go into the breach, you damn well respect basic rights

        1. And again, the article concedes, there are “probably constitional issues”

          You keep bringing this up, as if Ed Krayewski is some sort of constitutional lawyer whose opinion on this carries any more weight than yours or mine. Arguing, “But Ed said so!” isn’t persuasive.

          1. …keep bringing this up, as if Ed Krayewski is some sort of constitutional lawyer supreme court justice whose opinion on this carries any more weight than yours or mine.

            FIFY

        2. Keep clinging to the one assertion of the author – don’t bother coming up with something on your own.

          Pray, explain where a “due process” violation comes from in a government employee being fired for refusing to answer questions of Congress?

          And I can do naught but laugh at your claim of having superior rights due to your employment status. You have them by judicial construction and union contract – not because of some heroic source. I had fewer rights as a soldier, and I damn well knew it. Cops are not REQUIRED to go anywhere. Soldiers are – look at the statutory duties the Army has vs your union contract. Stop beating your chest hero .

          1. You’re questioning his hero status?

            He’s killed peaceful puppies and beaten the shit our of innocent civillains.

            Have you done either?

            Huh soldier boy.

        3. And again, the article concedes, there are “probably constitional issues”

          There well might be. But those are separation of powers issues, not due process issues, you fucking retarded baboon.

          As for the seperate protections, we also have seperate duties, that make them reasonable.

          Fuck you, cocksucker. What part of “equal protection under the law” do you not understand. Go back to your union hall and try to deadlift the two cars I saw you hurt your back on during the World’s Strongest Man 1997 rerun.

          We are the ones expected to go TOWARDS danger and use deadly force when appropriate.

          Except, of course, for the fact that police officers took it to the SC that they are NOT expected to do any such thing. And they won, so you can stow that bullshit right here and now.

          We don’t have the option of just going “fuck it” and walking away, like a “civilian”.

          Um, yeah you do. See my above comment.

          You are going to REQUIRE officers to go into the breach, you damn well respect basic rights

          I will refer the officer to the comment I made some moments ago.

          GO. DIE. IN. A. FIRE.

          1. You really are sad and small when you resort to personal attacks. You wouldn’t survive a week on the streets with such a weak will and ridiculous attitude.

            I stand by my record of service, and you stand by nothing of value, except being a keyboard warrior

            1. “on the streets”

              That’s a fucking joke, right? From what I can recall on here, you’ve spent as much time on short- and long-term disability as you have on “active duty”.

              And yes, we know you stand by your record of service…a record you will not verify even exists beyond your own imagination. Talk about a keyboard warrior.

        4. We are the ones expected to go TOWARDS danger and use deadly force when appropriate.

          Those dogs aren’t going to shoot themselves…

          1. Neither are those paraplegic people in wheelchairs that are holding pens.

            1. THAT LITTLE KID IS HOLDING A TOY GUN!!!! SHOOT HIM!!

        5. As for the seperate protections, we also have seperate duties, that make them reasonable.

          And one of those duties should be cooperating with your superiors during an investigation of your department.

    7. Dont forget, Dunphy here is a union man.

      I worked for the State of Louisiana for a while. The employee rolls are chock full of incompetent retards for the simple reason that you cannot fire one except under the most extreme circumstances. The union sees to that.

      Result; There is no incentive to do a good job and many reasons not to do a good one so as to stand out. I finally got fed up with it and left. While I was there I saw many other competent people do the same. Fuck unions, and fuck any public servant making far over the average american’s income.

      Barring anyone who deceives congress from public employment does not present constitutional problems.

      1. Tread lightly. I caught holy hell on here for sullying the good name of government employees the other day by saying they aren’t up to par with their private sector counterparts.

        1. Whether or not, on average, they are up to par with private sector is irrelevant. We are talking, as the article concedes CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.

          fwiw, I have on numerous occasions criticized union workers and their sense of entitlement and civil service mentality.

          Which is wholly irrelevant to due process and constitutional protections.

          1. You have no constitutional right to a job.

            There are laws and regulations governing who can be employed in the government. Adding another that you cannot lie or deceive congress and keep your job is not unconstitutional.

          2. fwiw, I have on numerous occasions criticized union workers and their sense of entitlement and civil service mentality.

            Whoopdy-fucking-doo. Hitler probably once said Jews were industrious people.

            1. Again, there are constitutional issues with a congress critter having authoritah to terminate an executive branch member for daring not to lick his boots.

              You can’t see that because your hate blinds you. It’s pretty fucking sad that you come out as a slaver/defender of congressional power in this regards, as long as the target (federal employee) is loathsome enough to you. The double standard is telling

              1. there are constitutional issues with a congress critter having authoritah to terminate an executive branch member for daring not to lick his boots.

                Testifying to Congress =/= licking their boots.

                And a generalized law that says refusal to testify will result in immediate termination is not singling anyone out.

              2. The constitutional issues here are easily resolved by a cursory knowledge of the document and separation of powers:

                There is congressional oversight of the executive branch in how they operate IRT federal law. If an employee of the people does not answer questions pertaining to how their department or themselves specifically perform their duties, then they are subject to termination. That’s how it could easily work and I’m sure it would pass constitutional muster for the simple facts that this is not a criminal proceeding and Congress is granted oversight of their department by the Constitution.

                Dumbass.

        2. My advice to them….or anyone really….is that if you dont like being called an asshole, dont be an asshole.

          Heh, hell doesnt really bother me.

        3. In my experience it really depends. I have met a range in both arenas.

          One thing that hamstrings even the folks that are dedicated and want to work hard is that they can get themselves and/or supervisors in hot water if they work more than 8 hrs per day without authorization. Perverse incentives right?

    8. “apparently that’s not a big deal with reasonoids when it comes to due process and employee rights”

      Since when is getting shitcanned for insubordination = Law & Order:Workplace Taskforce? I don’t recall being provided a lawyer the last my boss called me in for a ‘chat’.

    9. Except no-one would be violating her constitutional rights for letting her go after invoking her 5th amendment right.

      She doesn’t have a constitutional right to that job, she can *quit* at anytime, why can’t the government decide to stop having her work for them anytime they want?

  5. How about automatic dismissal for members of Congress refusing to answer my questions?

    1. How about automatic dismissal for doing anything even slightly illegal, immoral, unethical, or beneath the sartorial standards of proper behavior?

      1. Not answering my questions is illegal, immoral, unethical and beneath the sartorial standards of proper behavior.

        I mean, in the Court of Paul. Which is now in session.

        1. I’ve said this 100 times here or more, but I think politicians and appointees should be above suspicion, like Caesar’s wife. If not, jettison them. . .like Caesar’s wife.

          1. Appointees, like cops, are subject to suspicion like no other employees. It hardly escapes the attention of arrestees, suspects, etc. that the easiest way to help their case is to turn it around and accuse the arresting officer of something. That’s why I am such a firm believer in videotaping/audiotaping by/of cops, because I know (and the record is pretty clear) that on the whole, it is much more likely to protect us from false claims. In cases where it catches actual corruption vs. bogus claims, that’s of course a rare bonus

            1. Just as much suspicion as the FBI, right? I’m sure there’s just as much followthrough as well.

              1. Look, they would follow through if only they had enough time. Locking up parents for letting their toddler piss in their front yard, raping their prisoners and shooting paraplegic men with an ink pen prominently held in their hand takes up a lot of time.

      2. I’m in.

      3. Yes this. Heck, Congress is technically the boss so why aren’t they holding themselves responsible when bad shit happens? They’re the ones who are the ultimate enabler in the first place.

        But I will settle for legislation nullification by minority vote on a per district basis.

        1. funding decisions are wholly distinguishable from fire/hire decisions.

          In the case of cops, we have due process, binding arbitration etc. rights and despite the actions of petty tyrants like the portland mayor

          http://www.oregonlive.com/port…..draws.html

          such agreements and protections matter to those of us who care about rights.

          1. such agreements and protections matter to those of us who care about rights.

            Yes, we should be more concerned about protecting people who take a shit on the rights of citizens, then the actual citizens themselves.

  6. They should all be at-will employees. When a new administration rolls in, send ’em packing. Old school.

    1. If I were president for a day, I’d be impeached by noon–even if Congress wasn’t in session.

  7. It seems to me every article used to be rife with trolls sucking obamacock. Is it just me or have they dramatically reduced their presence here?

    Are they growing tired of defending the indefensible? Perhaps they are beginning to finally lose faith.

    1. Maybe the puppet master is just on vacation.

      1. DING DING DING

  8. The bill would also allow three-quarters of a Congressional committee to fire a federal worker if they felt the worker provided willfully false testimony.

    How about if 0.75 * 25K petitioners on the President’s website demand that the worker be fired?

    After all, they work for us.

    1. Of course, the President would be exempt.

  9. There are probably some Constitutional issues with members of the legislative branch firing employees of the executive branch,

    I don’t see this being an issue. Under the enumerated powers, congress has the power to make rules for the government, and the “necessary and proper” clause.

    1. Or they could just tax her 100%.

      1. Penaltax? Sounds good to me.

        /John Roberts

    2. They clearly have the authority to defund any and every agency run by the executive branch.

      1. It’s actually quite amazing how powerful Congress is, given what little they do about things.

        1. Congress-critters are weanies. They only pay attention to pulling in campaign funds and positioning themselves for the next election.

          1. Which is why the tons of blatantly unconstitutional delegations of power to the executive should’ve been stopped by the courts long ago. Not like Congress can be trusted to act responsibly.

        2. It’s actually quite amazing how powerful Congress is, given what little they do about things.

          If they actually did things then someone might try to hold them responsible.

          1. No doubt that’s the principal motivation.

            1. Yup. You can never really know which block of voters will be necessary to put you over the top in the next election. So don’t get caught shitting on any specific group of voters if you can avoid it (unless it simultaneously revs up a bigger block of voters that you’re chasing).

              1. If I ever lose my mind and run for Congress, I know one thing–I won’t give a fuck about re-election if it means doing anything I think is wrong. Which, of course, is the main reason I’d never run. That and the bad food.

                1. This is what makes Rand such an interesting experiment.

                  1. He’s done pretty good so far. Not sure what to expect if he wins the White House.

      2. I would add to the bill, ‘once a termination is made, the decision is final and not subject to judiciary review. All compensation claims are to be denied with due prejudice.’

        Then you would see the little darlings in the bureaucracy think twice when asked by a superior to do something questionable.

        1. Nah. make ’em go to the Court of CLaims – maybe in 12 years they would get $50,000…before tax, heh heh.

      3. Which is wholly distinguishable from making individual firing decisions because an individual DARE defy congress. The double standard here is telling. We have reasonoids actually defending the authoritah of congress critters because goddammit we are talking federal EMPLOYEES at question here. Due process? Constitution? Not an issue for reasonoids when it comes to fed employees under suspicion, for reasonoids.

        Again, a disgusting and telling double standard

        1. Again, a disgusting and telling double standard

          Do you laugh out loud, or just smirk, when you post shit like that?

          1. I think dunphy is coked out, probably a little primer to help him start his shift.

        2. Does congress have the authority to provide oversight of federal agencies? If a federal employee is not willing to cooperate with congress, when performing that roll, why should that employee be entitled to a job? Most private sector employees who dare defy their employers would be in the same boat.

          1. The issue is a legislative branch member having authoritah to fire an executive branch member summarily for daring not to lick his boots.

            That’s setting aside the issues of binding arbitration etc. that often apply, and rightly so, in such cases of employment

            If you can’t see a problem with giving legislative branch members authoritah to summarily fire executive branch appointees for daring not to lick their boots,… well, I can’t help ya

            1. The issue is a legislative branch member having authoritah to fire an executive branch member summarily for daring not to lick his boots.

              You keep saying “licking boots” when reasonable people say “answer his questions in his Constitutionally-established oversight capacities.”

              Do you plan on continuing down this road of stupid or are you gonna hit the brakes any time soon?

            2. The issue is a legislative branch member having authoritah to fire an executive branch member summarily for daring not to lick his boots.

              No, that’s not the issue. Congress wouldn’t be firing anyone. They would pass a law stating a federal employee must cooperate with congress when carrying our their roll of oversight.

              Congress has the authority to make rules for the government, and the IRS is part of the government. Congress also has the power of oversight, and has the authority to pass laws that enable them to execute that power.

              1. And if a federal employee violates such a law, the House can impeach her and the Senate can convict her and remove her from office…and can also bar her from holding office in the future.

                If Congress doesn’t have the guts to defend itself from defiant bureaucrats, then they deserve what they get.

        3. Which is wholly distinguishable from making individual firing decisions because an individual DARE defy congress.

          Yep, Congress is only the legislative body that funds their employment and (theoretically) writes the rules that govern that employment.

          Federal employees should be able to openly defy and lie to their employers.
          It’s not like their just citizens or something.

          Or that Congress is like a bunch of gangbangers cops.

    3. Impeachment is the way to go. It’s in the Constitution, after all.

  10. How about immediate dismissal for any federal employee that refuses to respond to questions from tax payers instead?

  11. There’s baboon shit all over this thread.

    Fosdick must be tinkering with his meds again.

  12. Sloopy, I’ll just say this. The more you attack me, as a cop for alleged dishonesty, etc. the more it reinforces my pride as a scrupulously honest and ethical public servant with 20+ yrs of saving lives, serving the public, RESPECTING the public (as opposed to the reasonoids who claim 90% of the public are idiots), and putting my life on the line for them. I’ve seen 1/2 dozen friends take bullets in the same service and nothing you can say can diminish my fierce pride in what I do. It matters. We make a difference. You don’t. You are just some troll who engages in keyboard warriorship and then goes back to his safe life. We’ll continue to be on the front lines protecting you, despite your distaste for us.

    1. Hey, hey

      Dumb phey

      How many puppies

      Did you kill today.

    2. Sloopy, I’ll just say this. The more you attack me, as a cop for alleged dishonesty, etc. the more it reinforces my pride as a scrupulously honest and ethical public servant with 20+ yrs of saving lives, serving the public, RESPECTING the public (as opposed to the reasonoids who claim 90% of the public are idiots), and putting my life on the line for them. I’ve seen 1/2 dozen friends take bullets in the same service and nothing you can say can diminish my fierce pride in what I do. It matters. We make a difference. You don’t. You are just some troll who engages in keyboard warriorship and then goes back to his safe life. We’ll continue to be on the front lines protecting you, despite your distaste for us.

      I wonder if the two cops who unloaded over 100 bullets at those Mexican women delivering newspapers say the same thing to themselves every night…as they remove their police uniform instead of the prison jumpsuit they should be in.

    3. We’ll continue to be on the front lines protecting you, despite your distaste for us.

      Don’t kid yourself. It’s not distaste, but raw hatred I feel for you and your unions that have perverted due process, polluted the equal protection clause and rewritten the laws to serve yourself as it pertains to police oversight and civilian review.

  13. “We’ll continue to be on the front lines protecting you…”

    Speaking for myself, I don’t want your fucking protection and didn’t ask for it, so kindly fuck off and mind your own business. If you and your fat fuck friends want to gather once a week and give yourselves awards for your supposed bravery, then have at it. Just remember the point: Fuck off and mind your own fucking business. I WILL thank you for that.

  14. “Congressman Proposes Automatic Dismissal for Federal Employees Refusing to Answer Congress’ Questions; Good Luck With That!”

    Yeah, as much fun as this would be to watch – there’s that whole 5th amendment thingy standing in the way.

    I’ll not cut down all the trees in the forest just to get at the devil.

    1. I’m glad you changed your mind upthread.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.