Anti-Czar bill introduced

Thomas Lifson
It isn't getting a lot of media attention and with the Democrats' majorities in the House and Senate, it is probably doomed, but for the sake of the memory of our Constitution, somebody had to do it. From the Benton Country (Arkansas) Daily Record:

H.R. 3226, the Czar Accountability and Reform Act of 2009, would bar the use of appropriated funds to pay either expenses or salaries of members of task forces, councils, or similar offices established by the president and headed by a person appointed inappropriately to such a post without Senate advice and consent.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. And co-sponsored by Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark. To his everlasting credit, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who, for all his faults is a keen student of history, has also been raising objections to the Czar madness that has gripped the Democrats and their media lapdogs. If a Republican president had tried to grab unaccountable power in this manner, there would be a firestorm.

www.americanthinker.com...

The anti-Czar bill will probably get nowhere because of the Democrat mayority, but at least somebody is trying to stop the madness.

As the article says, if it was a Republican administration doing this, the left would have stated this is proof that a dictatorship is being set up, and the Republican president would be called to stop the madness or be impeached for doing this. But since it is a Democrat, or Socialist President, and a Democrat Senate and House are backing him up for the most part not even the media is calling this usurpation of power to be stopped.

I don't see how this would ruin our country, like everyone seems to think. Sure, it would symbolically destroy our country and what it stands for, which is capitalism and free market, but that is it. It will only be symbolic.

So what if Obama and his administration are trying something different? We are in time of crisis and need to do something, and obviously what we have been doing hasn't worked for very long. If my knowledge of history is correct, I believe FDR tried something different, something unheard of. And I do recall it working.

This country willl never be pure Socialism just like it will never be pure capitalism. No one side is the right way to go. Capitalism is unstable and prone to greed and Socialism...well, I cannot say anything you don't already know.

Maybe this Czar thing and Socialist outlook is what this country needs. Granted, no one wants a pure Socialism, but maybe the Government needs to step in where the CEO's have complete control. That way we can avoid this situation, on the brink of complete depression.

That is my opinion, and I will respect yours, so please respect mine.

reply to post by Bushido Kanji


Article One, section 9: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

This is my only issue with Czar status's. They are unaccountable to the people.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
As the article says, if it was a Republican administration doing this, the left would have stated this is proof that a dictatorship is being set up, and the Republican president would be called to stop the madness or be impeached for doing this.

Do you remember President Richard M. Nixon? He had appointed an Energy Czar.

Do you remember President Gerald Ford? He had appointed a Science Czar.

Do you remember President Ronald Reagan? He had appointed a Drug Czar.

Do you remember President George Bush? He had appointed a Border Czar.

Do you remember President George W. Bush? He had appointed a Cybersecurity Czar (Richard Clark), a Regulatory Czar at the Office of Management and Budget, an AIDS Czar (Randall Tobias), a Health Czar (Mike Leavit), a Manufacturing Czar, an Intelligence Czar, a Terrorism Czar, a Bird-flu Czar, a Katrina Czar, a Copyright Czar, and last but not least, a War Czar. And let us not forget the most memorable George W. Bush appointed Czar of them all...Domestic Policy Czar Karl Rove!!!

All of these former presidents that appointed Czars were Republican.

Selective Memory is a funny thing when people are too busy pointing fingers at others.

[edited for double post]

[edit on 4-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Bushido Kanji
I don't see how this would ruin our country, like everyone seems to think.

People appointed to government positions by the president require a vote by the Senate. These "czars" have been appointed to government positions without any vote. That makes this unconstitutional.

The czars have unlimited power, unbounded by the constitution, and receive high salaries paid by taxpayers. There is no oversight and no accountability. The act of naming someone a "czar" may just be a symbolic one, but the act of handing unlimited and unconstitutional power over to one person is a dangerous one.

National Socialism was a new idea too. New ideas aren't always good ideas.

reply to post by Bushido Kanji


Sorry but the one thing we do not need is to screw up the balance of power set up by the forefathers of this nation, and that is what President Obama and his administration are doing.

This is a made up economic mess, the Feds stole 3-4 trillion dollars, and the Obama administration want to give also more power to the Feds so they can steal more, and so they have enough power so that noone can stop them.

The Republic is being dismantled, and transformed into another Socialist dictatorship and you claim "it is only symbolic"?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You talk about balance of power, but there will never be a balance of power. There will always either be a stalemate, which nothing will get accomplished, or one side majority. And you say that like no other President has done that.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Well, call me ignorant. I don't know the Constitution by heart. You got me there.


reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Since when has a President followed the Constitution? I am not trying to start an argument here, it is a rhetorical question, but seriously.

reply to post by Bushido Kanji


No you aren't ignorant. There is plenty I don't know. Like I said my only issue is that they need to be voted in by congress. Not that I trust congress, but eh.

reply to post by fraterormus


All those people were CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE, not to mention that noone ever had as many as Obama has appointed...in the case of the Obama Czars many, actually most are not being confirmed by the Senate. Understand the difference?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) has introduced H.R. 3226, the Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009.

Rep. Kingston’s press release explains why he is introducing this bill:
Since being sworn in, President Obama has appointed as many as 34 czars to oversee and implement a wide array of his agenda ranging from the automobile industry to global warming to the Great Lakes. With a salary of up to $172,000 in addition to staff, office and travel budgets, Congressman Jack Kingston (R/GA-1) sees the appointments as a growing problem costing taxpayers millions.

To make matters worse, Kingston says, only a very few of these czars have been confirmed by the United States Senate despite the Constitutions requirements for Senate confirmation. To address the matter, the Congressman has introduced legislation which would withhold funding from any czar not confirmed by the Senate.

“While the Constitution may be inconvenient to the Administration, Article II, Section 2 clearly requires the ‘advice and consent of the Senate,’” Congressman Kingston said. “Why wont the President use transparency and have these people come before the Senate and undergo the constitutionally-mandated process? In 300 years, czarist Russia had just 18 czars. Its taken just seven months for President Obama to nearly double that number.”

While previous administrations had czars – Ronald Reagan had 1, George Bush had 1, Bill Clinton had 3 and George W. Bush had 4 – Congressman Kingston’s concern takes root in the number and speed with which they are being appointed as well as the vast policy areas they govern.

“At this rate, we’ll have 272 czars by 2012,” said Congressman Kingston. “It seems President Obama is in the midst of forming a parallel government to push his policies. Not only do they duplicate existing Senate-confirmed positions, they are completely unaccountable. I serve on the Appropriations Committee which is responsible for overseeing every dollar spent by our government but I’ve yet to see a single one of Obama’s czars.”

www.traditionalvalues.org...

SAN FRANCISCO -- The government's four-year plan to protect the nation's IT infrastructure is getting a passing grade at mid-term, according to security experts who presented at the annual RSA Security Conference here this week. But according to two surveys by cyber security groups, the White House could do more.

This week also saw Michael Chertoff become the director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after being unanimously confirmed by the Senate Tuesday. He replaced Tom Ridge who stepped down Feb. 1.

The DHS oversees the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), which it created in response to the Bush administrations National Strategy to Secure Cyber Space.

www.internetnews.com...




[edit on 4-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Bushido Kanji
Since when has a President followed the Constitution?

Does that excuse everything Obama does? It's tragic that nothing was done about violations of the constitution before the Obama administration, but that does not mean we should look the other way during and after his administration.

If we do nothing about abuses of power, we will eventually live in a dictatorship. That's a simple fact backed up 100% by history. I don't understand why Americans seem to think the United States is immune to meeting the same fate that Germany, Russia, and countless other countries in history did before us, but the longer we lie to ourselves and claim American leaders are above that sort of tyrannical control of the population, the more we make it become a reality.

reply to post by Bushido Kanji

Maybe this Czar thing and Socialist outlook is what this country needs. Granted, no one wants a pure Socialism, but maybe the Government needs to step in where the CEO's have complete control. That way we can avoid this situation, on the brink of complete depression.

And what if the Czar is a corporate flunky. Taylor was lawyer for Monsanto before he was head of FDA. He said GMO is the same as natural so no testing needed. Farmers are up in arms about the new "food safety bills" designed to regulate family farms out of business. Scuttlebutt is this same man, Taylor, will be Czar. Do you think family farms stand a chance under his watch?

The only hope for our economy is to give freedom to the small businesses who employ a large portion of US citizens. Strangling regulations are designed BY corporations as an insurmountable barrier to new entries. If pharmacutical type regs are put in place for farming (and that is the goal) can anyone but big corporations run farms? A farmer in England whose is trying to farm under the regulations the FDA/USDA is "harmonizing" to, stated he now spends over 60% of his time filling out government paperwork. All of his neighbors have quit.

A former VP of Cargill as a USDA employee wrote the "Freedom to Farm act" later known as the "freedom to Fail act" because it bankrupted so many farmers. It also did away with US storage of staples. Now we are completely dependent on the current harvests. For grain trades like Cargill, this means a major increase in profits. For the people - Famine anyone? ATS

Partisan issues aside, as at the heart of the issue this shouldn't be an Obama-bashing Bill, even though it is being used as such (and as my previous post in this thread pointed out, this is a long-standing tradition used by Republicans. Obama is just continuing the same practice used by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and George W.)....the Czar thing has been out of control since George W. Bush onward.

Should the President (whether they are George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, or any future president) have the legal ability to appoint "Czars" that are not approved by the Senate?

The Senate is charged with consenting or confirming the appointments of Cabinet secretaries of the Executive Branch. There is no limit as to the number of Cabinet Seats there are in the Executive Branch, as these Cabinet appointments have been redefined and expanded by the Senate over time (Washington had only 4 Cabinet seats, we now have 15). The reason that the Cabinet posts of the Executive Branch have to be approved by Congress as described in Article Two of the Constitution is because of the Presidential Line of Succession which defines who may become or act as President of the United States in instances where the President is incapacitated, resigns, or is removed from office.

However, neither Presidential appointed or Senate approved Czars fall within that Presidential Line of Succession. Therefore a legal argument does exist for why they would *NOT* need Senate approval in the first place.

As far as the accountability issue, a position assigned by the Executive Branch answer to the President (or Vice-President) directly. They are not under direct oversight by the U.S. Senate...but then again, even Cabinet Officers and Secretaries which must be approved by the Senate are not under direct oversight by the Senate either. That is intentional to keep Balance of Power between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of government. This makes none of them above the law, but it prevents from one branch of government strong-arming another branch.

Since Roosevelt there have been basically two separate Cabinets in the Executive Branch already. There are the "Big Four" (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General) who have significant powers, and the rest of the Cabinet that truly have become relatively unimportant and are more figureheads than Regulatory Powers. Perhaps it is time that the Senate vote to restructure the Cabinet of the Executive Office into two parts to reflect how the Cabinet of the Executive Office has functioned since Roosevelt. The first part being the Cabinet of Officers and the second being the Cabinet of Czars. In both cases, the Senate must approve the creation of the seat on a Cabinet (i.e., if a President decides he needs a position on the Cabinet for Cybersecurity, then Senate must approve the creation of that position). For those positions that fall in the Cabinet of Officers, each appointment must be approved by the Senate as they fall in the Presidential Line of Succession and they do have significant powers within the Executive Branch. For those positions that fall in the Cabinet of Czars, appointments need not be approved by the Senate, although the Senate has the ability to redefine the positions on the Cabinet or expand them, as they already do with the Cabinet of the Executive Branch.

Most importantly, by Congress making a Cabinet of Czars in the Executive Branch, these Czars would fall under Title 5 of the United States Code and their regulations.

This solution would maintain the Balance of Power between the Legislative and Executive Branches, enable the President to appoint Czars as needed so long as the U.S. Senate approves the creation of a new seat on the Cabinet, and allows the President the ability to appoint Czars without Senate approval while continuing to reserve positions of significant power on the Cabinet to be confirmed by the Senate as they always have.


[edit on 4-8-2009 by fraterormus]

I guess Bush expanded the powers of the Czars, but Obama in only 8 months in power is making that new position of Czar a true personal gestapo office to serve directly to him, most of them operating from the white house itself.

And is not 30 something Czars now is up to 40 with the new appointments that has been going on in recent weeks.

Hail to the Czars!!!!!!!!!!!!