It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Misplaced Fears About The "Czars"

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:09 PM

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) argued on this page this week ["Czarist Washington," op-ed, Sept. 13] that the Obama administration's "czars" are effectively in those positions unconstitutionally because their hiring creates "precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent." Far from undermining the separation of powers, however, the president's right to organize his White House policymaking apparatus is protected by that very constitutional principle.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This informative article not only points out that former president Bush had 46 people filling 36 "czar" appointments in his administration, but also cites court rulings on the right of presidents to have advisors:

The Constitution's "appointments clause" requires that very senior federal officials be appointed with the Senate's consent, though lesser appointments can be made by the president, agency heads or the courts, as Congress provides. Well-established Supreme Court precedent holds that an "officer" subject to these requirements is one who exercises "significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States."

This is the critical difference between the White House czars and federal officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. In the absence of legislation (such as that creating the Office of Drug Control Policy, whose director is the "drug czar"), the only power exercised by White House czars comes from their proximity to the president and the access this provides. Yes, as many will note, that truly is power. But it is not significant authority under U.S. law -- which only the Constitution or Congress can confer.

Thus, White House "Energy and Environment Czar" Carol Browner can analyze, develop, advise, hold meetings and pound the table all she likes on energy and environment issues, but she can determine nothing. Her signature on any order, decision or regulation establishing or altering Americans' legal obligations would be meaningless, unenforceable by a court.

Contrast this with Browner's authority as Senate-confirmed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, when her signature on regulations gave them the force and effect of law, fully enforceable in the courts, not infrequently by substantial fines and even jail time.

I think some people get all bent out of shape by the use of the word "czar" (OMG that's Russian!) without realizing that it's a term also used by prior administrations and is just a short way to say advisor.

Anything that sounds in the least bit "socialist" or "communist" is enough to get the masses scrambling when it's Obama who's appointing them.

As long as they have no official authority it is perfectly Constitutional.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:22 PM
Perhaps that is the reason they are Presidential appointed "Czars" and not senate confirmed ones, so the presidents can surround itself with its own elite group of "yes" men that answers only to him, not to the senate or the people of the US.

Tricky, just like having your own personal elite guard but without the military training of communist nations or dictatorships.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by marg6043

ALL presidents have had advisors. Some were "yes men" and others weren't. It's perfectly Constitutional.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by Sestias

I still don't like how presidents increased the amount of this Czars through the years, specially when this is making just government bigger and more expensive, as this Czars have their own entourage of personnel also working under them.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by Sestias

I think the Constitutionality of Czars has yet to be answered by the courts. Mainly because no case has been put forth to the court. So as of now it is legal to have Czars. People may not like it but until they put a case before the court, it is all legit.

Robert Byrd also had a concern about czars.

Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, 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.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:03 PM
Obama appointed them as Czar's probably because they could not pass the F.B.I. investigations or receive any level of Security Clearance because of their past statements and activities.

Van Jones comes to mind.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by jam321

To quote the source in your post:

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.

The above quote is not in the source that I posted. According to the Washington Post article, Bush had 36 czars. Obama is behind him by 20. Who to believe?

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Sestias]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by Sestias
While every President has the right to have advisors, it's who they choose to look to for "advice" that's most telling:

Carol Browner, Climate Czar, formerly of Socialist International, supporter of “global governance,” was a leader of the socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

Cass Sunstein, Regulatory czar, has proposed bans on hunting and eating meat. He believes animals have a right to an attorney and to sue you in court. He believes: “ There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day.”

John Holdren, Presidential Science Advisor, advocates America’s “de-industrialization.” He says: ”[L]aws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the Constitution.”

“The need for De-development presents our economists with a major challenge. Redistribution of wealth is absolutely essential.”

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity czar, wants to enforce “localism” with fines and fees, then turn over the funds to public broadcasting., where opinions and news are more “progressive friendly.” In other words, the "Fairness Doctrine” (which our elected reps in Congress abolished) will be used to politically monitor and punish broadcasters whose views don’t reflect those of the administration.

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Care czar, is a proponent of the “complete lives” regime. That is, that health care resources should be allocated by age and to “productive” Americans. He has advised the President that: “This provides allocation of health care resources. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

(Can anyone say"death panels?")

Daniel Chu, Energy Secretary, has “nightmares about coal.” He advocates that Americans pay “European prices” for gasoline and energy.

Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber, cop killer, and Acorn activist. He says: ”I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Jeff Jones, Weather Underground co-founder, with Ayers. The Apollo Alliance, under Jeff and Van Jones created Barack Obama’s stimulus bill that absolutely no one in Congress read.

Here’s what Jeff Jones KNOWS about Obama’s agenda:

“He is setting Clinton up to be the face of his effort to end the Iraq war. He is going to sucessfully extort concessions from Detroit. He will convince Congress to pass a major stimulus package.

These various initiatives, which will collectively set the nation on a path towards redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda. His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center. Even Lenin would be impressed!”

Van Jones, communist and founder of STORM, whose philosophy says: “All of STORMS members developed a basic understanding of and commitment to Revolutionary Marxist Policies.”


[edit on 20-9-2009 by jdub297]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:30 PM
Whether they go through the motions of "appointing" these people as czars or just have dinner with their friend and get advice, MANY people advise the president. There seems to be some sort of idea that these czars' opinions will become Obama's opinions and that what the czars want, the czars will get. That's just silly.

They are advisers, not policy makers. Anything that they might like to see happen has to go through Obama. And I doubt seriously that he's going to enact a law requiring compulsory abortion or outlaw hunting.
For one thing, Congress would have to make these laws. We do remember how government works, don't we?

All this fear is ridiculous. And the fact that no one QUESTIONED Bush's czars makes all this "concern" seem highly suspect. :shk:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:28 PM
I think we're all in agreement that "czars" are constitutional, but that maybe there more limits to their abilities or they should be confirmed by the Senate.

The thing that I want stopped is people acting like this is Obama. As it was said by the OP, Bush had dozens of them. All presidents have.

Fox News made it look like Obama was trying to start a NWO with them...

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:29 PM
The issue isn't the President having advisors. Its when these advisors or Czars have powers and administer policy decisions and they are not approved by Congress. Obama or any President, Republican or Democrat should not have the ability to create positions of power out of thin air, and then create bureaucracies for them.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by jdub297

Most of the people you mention aren't even Obama's czars, like Bill Ayers and some of his associates. Obama's very tenuous acquaintance with Ayers and other radicals was gone through completely during the election and I don't see any reason to go into it again here.

If everyone on the right who ever had a controversial or stupid view on something, or who ever even SPOKE to someone with an outlandish opinion, and then had every comment or contact exaggerated, no one would escape unscathed. None of Bush's czars or advisors would pass muster either. He could be accused of consorting with KKK members and doctor murderers if you only went by all the people he ever had contact with.

I personally don't think that everyone who has ever read anything about socialism or used the "s" word should be made into a monster. Socialism is an economic theory that every educated person should at least know about, and has engaged some of the greatest minds in history. Trust me, you won't turn into a werewolf if you read a little Marx or Engels.

No matter how you twist his motives or acquaintances, Obama is nowhere near being a Marxist. I know some Marxists, and he isn't one.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:37 PM
Here is the breakdown of czars. Take note of how many were created by Obama vs. those that existed prior. Of those preexisting, the majority were Senate confirmed. Of the 17 czar positions created by Obama only ONE was confirmed by Senate.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I remember Nixon's czars, energy and drug, I believe. At the time, the word was used to give more tough sounding force to the position. Now the word is used to imply that Obama is going to send us all to the gulags, since it sounds so Russiany, so communist.

To quote Lewis Carol
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

During the Iranian hostage crisis, the Iranian religious men were always described in the news as being "black robed" and "black turbaned". Ah, the aura of mysterious evil. Except for the turban, "black robed" could refer to residents of the Vatican, but it never is. Catholic priests not being too terribly mysterious or evil...well, to most folks.

The term "political correctness", PC, was first used by the left to laugh at themselves. Then the right (who lacked that self-depricating humor I guess) co-opted it, turned it back on the left, implying that the left were all...communist thought and action police!

Can't say a darned thing without having to worry about PC...unless you think and act like Rush Limbaugh etal. Now RL (who is being shoved off the current publicity radar by Glenn Beck) knows how to rise above those commies and feminazis! No thought police with them. No, Sir. Just outright no thought control at all.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:57 PM

Originally posted by johnny2127 Its when these advisors or Czars have powers and administer policy decisions and they are not approved by Congress.

What kind of power? They have no power. They're just advisers. They don't make policy decisions. They have the president's ear, that's it.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:14 PM
Another point also, how many of this Czars that are advisers are also lobbying for private interest, or get money from private interest to influence the president.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by jibeho
Here is the breakdown of czars. Take note of how many were created by Obama vs. those that existed prior. Of those preexisting, the majority were Senate confirmed. Of the 17 czar positions created by Obama only ONE was confirmed by Senate.

Your synopsis is a little misleading. Only one of Obama's Czars NEEDED to be confirmed by the Senate. The others don't need to be, because they do not have a sufficient level of authority.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Sestias]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:01 PM
Sestias is correct.

Obama hasn't done anything wrong. Stop the Obama hatred where it isn't due.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

For one thing, Congress would have to make these laws. We do remember how government works, don't we?

Oh, really?

When did Congress create new mileage and emissions standards for auto manufacturers? They didn't! Obama did through regulation from an administrative agency - - an executive function.

When did Congress create new tariffs for Chinese tires? They didn't! Obama did through adminstrative/executive action to protect his union constituencies.

When did Congress determine that CO2 and 5 other gases were harmful to human health and must be regulated? They didn't. Obama did through executive action taken through an EPA "determination."

Every one of the cited agencies is overseen by a hand-picked, unconfirmed, "czar!"

Need more examples?

You seem to forget that while Congress enacts laws, it is the executive, through administrative agencies, that implements them!

Most of the restrictions on American industry DO NOT come from Congress. They come from FDA, FTC, EPA, DOE, DOL, HHS, et c.
Even foreign policy is being conducted through "special envoys" instead of traditional State Dept. channels!

ALL adminstrative agencies serve under the Executive Branch.

Obama hinted at this even before his inauguration, and made it explicit immediately upon taking office.

Some of us saw it coming.

26 March, 2009:
"Dictatorship by Executive Decree"

I guess the real question is, "Do YOU know how government "works?"

Deny ignorance.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by jdub297]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by Sestias

What happened to openness and transparency? Are those concepts no longer needed ?

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in