Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional »
Posted By Klarissa 5 months, 1 week ago in NewsKen Klukowski
Townhall
June 15, 2009
Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him.
Even before this latest appointment, the the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional.
President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.
As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased.
Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created.
Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen czars, and there may be more on the way.
Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.
Read Full Story at think.mtv.com »
1065 Views Share Story 78 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Klarissa
Berkeley conservative. Don't ask to be my friend unless you have a real bio.Eat your dessert first, life is uncertain. Bridge player, water ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 78 (view all)
-
60%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
from another article: http://informpeople.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-cz...
Reply
"Obama's Czar's
One of the trends I've noticed in the media in the last few months is the transition in use to the word "Czar". I first noticed it from CNN, dont' know if they started it or was following someone else's lead.
Apparently they want us to think it's a good word, like Obama is somehow more serious then past Presidents. Or that our problems are more important now then ever before. There is a rumor that the Obama team doesn't necessarily even care for the word either.
egardless, they media is filled with uses of the word, even replacing past official titles like " Health and Human Services Secretary" with the new and improved "Health Czar".
Why the Change?
The position already existed, and by adding the word Czar behind a position implies that person is of some sort of royalty.
After all "czar" is used as a general term for a monarch, it was used to identify the supreme ruler. It's also been used in history to replace titles like King or Emperor.
Is that the change Obama is bringing to Washington, that somehow these positions have been given more authority?
just check out all of the Czar positions below, that have been reported by the press.
CyberSpace Czar
Technology Czar
Drug Czar
Copyright Czar
Climate Czar
Car Czar
Energy Czar
Health Care Czar
WMD Czar
Education Czar
Economic Czar
Housing Czar
Mortgage Czar"-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive4 Replies
-
67%
Goppy5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL ... you know ... y'all on the right complained when I posted warnings about Cheney and Bush trying to place their Administration Above The Law.
Reply
I complained about their effort to instill "UNACCOUNTABILITY" into their administration.
I complained about their heavy handed elimination of AG's for not being 'partisan enough'.
I complained about their secrecy.
I especially complained about the "Signing Statements" that SPECIFICALLY placed the President ABOVE THE LAWS he was signing.
And if you remember ... at that time ... I stated this fact ... "One day, there will be a Democrat in the White House ... and you will be sorry that you mindlessly supported this Neo-Conservative Power acquisition ... and focus of power in the Oval Office."
Of course, President Obama has not come even close to George Bush and Dick Cheney's arbitrary use of power ... secrecy ... and Machiavellian techniques.
And all the "Czars" you are referencing are simply cabinet posts - common to every president. So I am not sure what game you are playing with us.
But nevertheless ... can you see why the Partisanship game currently being played out in America is a dysfunctional - - - counterproductive effort?
.
Here's an idea ... perhaps ... instead of attacking Mainstream Media .... and making ludicrous accusations of 'bias' ... so that citizens can absorb extreme partisan 'talking points' ... we should go back to the day when we let journalists be journalists ... and not be so cynical about the information Mainstream Media provides.
.
.
. -
-
-
60%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
another source:http://pinkelephantpundit.com/2009/06/10/ob...
Reply
President Obama: 16 Czars (and counting)
* Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, former Seattle police chief
* Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner
* Homeland Security Czar: John Brennan
* Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
* Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
* Economic Czar: Paul A. Volcker
* Regulatory Czar: Cass R. Sunstein
* Technology Czar: Vivek Kundra
* Government Performance Czar: Jeffrey Zients
* Border Czar: Alan Bersin
* WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore
* Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence): Dennis Blair
* Car Czar: Steven Rattner
* Pay Czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg
* Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
* Cyber Czar: TBA
Let’s talk a little more about this.
Know how many Czars Reagan had? One. Bush 41? One. Clinton? Three. Dubya? Four.
Obama has already QUADRUPLED that. And since most of these positions are already covered by Secretaries, the overlap is wasteful.
And some are just inane (seriously, A GREAT LAKES CZAR? What is a Great Lakes Czar? Overlord of the Catfish? I don’t understand). Scariest part?
Czars have no one to answer to but Obama. Know how much they are in control of? $1.7 TRILLION. Yeah.-
91%
wtagg5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Slippery slope. This type of stuff has been working its way in for a long time. When you have presidents that are following their perception of a compass, moral, fiscal, etc..., vs. what the citizenry want from their government, that is a problem. It is unfortunately a problem that we will continue to have to live under for a long, long time.
Reply
Our political party supports two flavors, vanilla and vanilla. Ok, maybe vanilla and french vanilla. You can decide which one gets the honors of being tagged with french vanilla. -
100%
Gransater5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a rumor that the Obama team doesn't necessarily even care for the word either.
Reply
egardless, they media is filled with uses of the word, even replacing past official titles like " Health and Human Services Secretary" with the new and improved "Health Czar".
Klarissa
The two lines above, are copied from your entry above. It would appear that it is the media who is appointing "czars" all over the place.
I could be wrong, don't follow coverage in tv very well, but I don't recall the President officially endorsing this tittle. As to the positions, well, someone is in charge of those departments. Don't know their exact official tittles, but I doubt its czar.
Is this not another feeding frenzy created by media, rather than by the President?
-
-
56%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
another interesting aspect of this: http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF01BC7210000800996F9C...
Reply
Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments.
For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.
White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.
But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone.
These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.
The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person.
That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress.
The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting. -
56%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
continued:
Reply
Fortunately, there is a remedy.
Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court.
Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have a court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist.
Then everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes.
Let the lawsuits begin. -
-
-
56%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that there are more czars - lists all over the place.
Reply
change, alright, so much for a constitutional lawyer - which it appears he knows just enough to know what he wants to violate., and he thinks that he is so popular that no one will call him on it.
The 2010 election is coming up very quickly.-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
64%
truthiness5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It sounds like Senator Byrd's interpretation of the constitution is accurate. Which not only creates issues with the President violating the constitution (something that never seemed to bother congress before) but also creates a potential issue of all his work being reversed by court order.
Reply
all of which could easily be avoided by simply getting the democratic controlled senate to advise and consent as the constitution requires.
he is like FDR in so many ways. -
67%
stephen-johnson5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know if Obama's overuse of "czars" is unconstitutional. But I do know tha these "czars" aren't subject to congressional oversight. That flies in the face of campaign promises Obama made about the "tranparency" of his future administration.
Reply
But Obama not living up to his campaign promises is par for the course. -
-
56%
Goppy5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact that Senator Byrd is complaining only proves what I have known all along ... Barack Obama is a CENTRIST.
Reply
And that's why I voted for him.
And no amount of Right Wing propaganda can convince me ... or other sane Americans ... that he's a Socialist.
At least ... he's no more of a Socialist than President Bush ... who Nationalized our Banking Industry on October 13, 2008 ... when he FORCED the CEO's of the seven largest Financial Institutions into accepting $700 BILLION ... in exchange for Government control.
.-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
-
57%
vader825 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I actually for once agree with most of your statement. Bush jr most certainly was behaving in a socialist manner when he pushed for the bailouts. That being said Obama is taking it to a whole new level, even going so far as attempting to bring the health care industry under partial government control. I don't think that pushing cap and trade would be considered by most to be centrist, or his previous votes as a state legislator regarding firearms.
Reply
-
-
56%
Goppy5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh ... I should add ... I expect y'all to agree with me ... that President Obama is a CENTRIST ... since you are quoting a LIBERAL Democrat for your anti-Obama story.
Reply
LOL!!
No ... I know you won't ... I've been a Propeller member for too long .... y'all don't have enough honesty for that.
. -
67%
beavith15 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wasn't Byrd the former KKK member? the one that's past all that?
Reply
Byrd moved on to self serving years ago. he 'left' the political spectrum and is somewhere in space.
comparing hinm to Obama and coming up with a location on a political spectrum is, shall we say, self serving? -
63%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
gopppy - your comment doesn't make any sense relative to the subject at hand.
Reply
Most of the cabinet heads now have an appointee of Obama telling them what to do.
These appointees may be in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
Intersting that you use the words "centrist, liberal, forced the ceos" when we are talking about something else entirely.-
20%
fsev415 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where do find it said that the Cabinet Secretaries report to these "czars"? Each one of these people is charged with handling a specific problem. With the myriad of problems left by the previous administration the Cabinet Secretaries need assistance in addressing as many problems as possible in an expedient manner. Obama has also met with much resistance to his appointments from the Republicans including lower level appointments. Some appointments have been blocked by a single senator or rep for as long as three months. I would be curious to know how many of GWB's appointments were blocked by the Dems.
Reply
-
-
100%
cloud155 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why don't these people have to answer to congress? They can set pay for companies receiving government handouts. This is a form of them setting government budgets by choosing how to spend that money since some of those handouts are certainly going towards salaries. Congress is what sets the government budget in our government, why are members of the executive branch being given that power?
Reply -
50%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mesodude said, "Who cares, Klarissa? Life is too short. Why are you posting this horsesh*t?"
Reply
Because I believe in the constitution and the balance of powers.
Obama is succeeding in making himself a dictator, and like the Germans before WWII, we are letting it happen. -
67%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You all can argue the title of "czar" all you want. Try putting that word aside for a minute, and think about the POSITION that has absolute power over THE CABINET.
Reply
The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office.
The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General. -
KlarissaComment removed: Spam
-
-
50%
lloydm655 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the real Robert Byrd,the Byrd I woke up to watch,and hear the repeats of his C-Span speeches all through the eighties.Not the Byrd who said on Larry King show that Clinton was guilty of perjury,obstruction,and then vote not guilty at the trail.Not Byrd who watch his state vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton,then on the same day walk cast his ballot for Obama.God Bless you senator.
Reply-
43%
mesodude5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Not the Byrd who said on Larry King show that Clinton was guilty of perjury,obstruction,and then vote not guilty at the trail."
Reply
--You're clearly crestfallen over this...It must be tough having to put up with Democrats when you support a party that completely free of hypocrisy or political posturing. ;-(
-
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
djn3nunez35 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can get a list of the "Czars" and their offical titles here.
Reply
http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-...
Bizzare Czar anyone?-
67%
Klarissa5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So if these people aren't actually Czars, and the number of them is not in and of itself excessive, what is the problem here? Well, some of the positions are disturbing, such as the “Pay Czar” as reported previously. Some are staffed strangely, such as the “Stimulus Accountability Czar,” Earl Devaney, who previously was in charge of the Secret Service Fraud Division – what exactly is the message here? Some are frightening, such as “Energy Czar” or “Climate Czar,” Carol Browner, former high ranking member of Socialist International. . . .
Reply
But that doesn't mean that his appointees are or should be above scrutiny, and certainly the appointments themselves reflect back on the President who made them. Many of these appointments are excellant, but some are seriously questionable.
A known socialist as “Climate Czar” - I wonder what her solutions might be?
A “Car Czar” who has never worked in the auto industry, much less manufacturing. The former President of Fannie Mae as the “Bank Bailout Czar” - weren't these the guys who caused our current economic problems? Some of this is passing strange.
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.