White House Refuses To Rule Out Paying Fox.

We got an email from Michael Roston at Raw Story a little time ago. It seems the State Dept. refuses to say whether the White House is considering paying rich Bush camapign donor Sam Fox for his Bush Service Reward. Even though it is usual for a recess appointment to serve without recompense and even though there's a big question over the legality of recess appointing Fox, who had his nomination to Congress withdrawn by the White House in the first place.

The White House has sought to expand its ability to employ and pay nominees rejected by the Senate. In a Nov. 30, 2005 signing statement, President Bush took exception to annually-passed legislation prohibiting salaries for nominees rejected by the entire Senate.

"The executive branch shall construe this provision in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to make recess appointments," Bush said in the statement.

Christopher Rhee, an attorney at the Washington, DC, law firm Arnold & Porter told RAW STORY that Bush's move to send Fox to Belgium, whether as a salaried or voluntary recess appointee, was likely out of constitutional bounds.

"This is certainly not what the framers envisioned for the recess appointment clause," Rhee said. "When you're talking about an ambassadorship, the power of the purse is an important prerogative of the Congress, and if you take it out of the picture, as the President appears to have done in this case, you are definitely undermining Congress's authority to play a meaningful role in diplomatic and foreign affairs."

Then, just as Michael was getting ready to post his piece, a copy of a letter arrived from senior Senate Dems to the Government Accountability Office seeking advice on the legality of the President's actions.

That letter begins:

We write to request that the Government Accountability Office examine a particular aspect of the legality of the Bush Administration’s recent recess appointment of Mr. Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. We view the recess appointment of Mr. Fox as a clear abuse of the President’s recess appointment power, but additionally think that Mr. Fox may be barred from taking the position of Ambassador, since the government is prohibited from accepting the voluntary services of an individual under 5 U.S.C. § 1342. We would, therefore, appreciate your formal opinion on this issue.

The letter goes on to spell out why Senate Dems feel the recess appointment is illegal and asks the GAO for an urgent response. You can read the whole thing at the Raw Story link.

How often have we heard the Republicans say that this or that issue or nomination deserves an "up or down vote"? Yet when Bush deliberately circumvents any opportunity for such a vote, the cheerleaders duly wave their pom-poms. In such circumstances - blatant and partisan double standards in pursuit of what looks like it is an illegal appointment - they shouldn't be surprised if the Dems decide to play hardball.