Czar-dom
-
like 2003, the not so distant past?
their words are all smoke and mirrors.
Big trouble ahead, I think.
-
Sounds like a lot of political rhetoric.
Here is a good question,
"would you buy a used car from any of these czars?" NO & Hell NO
The individuals that are holding down jobs as czars would have a hard time being confirmed as cabinet members. and Obama knows that, so he is trying to step around the law (constitution) and does not want congress to be able to challenge anything he does.
-
Here's the real question and concern about these Czar's ("Special Advisors). If they are contributing to policy discussions...more accurately helping shape (word) policy then are they Unconstitutional? Please try not to run into respective corners here; it is a legit question.
-
I don't know whether they are constitutional or not, but czars have been around forever. Obama appointng them is nothing new/scary/fascist/Communist/socialist. In fact, they seemed to multiply under the W administration. I don't see what all the crying is about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._...ve_branch_czars
President's name In office Number of "czar" jobs Number of appointees Number of new positions
Franklin Roosevelt 1933-1945 12 19
Harry Truman 1945-1953 6 6
Dwight Eisenhower 1953-1961 1 1
Lyndon Johnson 1963-1969 3 3
Richard Nixon 1969-1974 2 4
Gerald Ford 1974-1977 1 1
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 2 3
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 2 3
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 6 9
George W. Bush 2001-2009 35 45
Barack Obama 2009 32 34
-
No, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. There are thousands of political appointees that don't require Congressional approval, and specific jobs that do.
And there are thousands of political appointees and hires that contribute to policy-making. The idea that anyone who has a hand in the legislative or agency process must be approved by the Senate is crazy.
The only problem is with appearances here, not legality. Obama doesn't want to be seen to be skirting the process, so Republicans are claiming that he is.
-
The only deal is that the question has never (to my knowledge) been raised about Czars helping to write specific policy. They have always been thought of has a more informal group of advisers. Whether it really is a big deal or not, I don't know, but if they are writing policy then they have to be approved by the Congress (like Cabinet Members). I would think the only reason this matters at all is b/c some of President Obama's Czar would never pass, so perception can lead one to think that they are Czars instead of Cabinet Members is to side step conformation.
-
No, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. There are thousands of political appointees that don't require Congressional approval, and specific jobs that do.
And there are thousands of political appointees and hires that contribute to policy-making. The idea that anyone who has a hand in the legislative or agency process must be approved by the Senate is crazy.
The only problem is with appearances here, not legality. Obama doesn't want to be seen to be skirting the process, so Republicans are claiming that he is.
No, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. There are thousands of political appointees that don't require Congressional approval, and specific jobs that do.
And there are thousands of political appointees and hires that contribute to policy-making. The idea that anyone who has a hand in the legislative or agency process must be approved by the Senate is crazy.
The only problem is with appearances here, not legality. Obama doesn't want to be seen to be skirting the process, so Republicans are claiming that he is.
But has you said those are POLITICAL appointees, not Presidential appointees. Article II outlines the process for Presidential appointees:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but 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.
-
Van Jones, Obama appointee. Communist and racist.
Name one of those Bush appointed.
That's the story we are dealing with right now.
-
@hiwaygal said:
T...where's that site you posted the other day??? The one that listed all the 'czars'.I'm gonna repeat myself but from what I could read on that list, many of those appointed had no real knowledge (that we could see) or experience in the field to which they had been appointed. There were a few notable exceptions (can't remember who right now)...but most were obvious campaign contributors or lobbyists put in positions of influence in this administration.
I have to give Obama credit...he CHANGED the way Washington pays off their 'friends' now...
Here you go Hot legs!
Is this the one? -
Not one comment about what the Constitution actually says?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login