Untouchable and Unconstitutional

[Key Guy]

Quote:

Barack Obama has appointed more czars in his administration than any other president in U.S. history. As many as 34 so far. They receive compensation in excess of $172,000 plus benefits and each have staffs of 10+ people. They have as much power as any cabinet but have absolutely no accountability to Congress whatsoever, ignoring the Constitutional mandate to do so. They are accountable to no one except the President.

Article II, Sect. 2 of the Constitution clearly states that Congress must be involved in presidential appointments.

[The President] 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.

To name a frightening example: Kenneth Feinberg, the White House's "pay czar," will have control over seven companies who received large amounts of bailout money as well as discretion over their top five executives and 20 highest paid employees. The auto czar is 31 years of age, drives a foreign car, has no experience whatsoever yet he is head of the U.S. auto industry. There is also a health reform czar, a drug czar, a border czar, a regulatory czar, and an info-tech czar, to name only a few.

These people have two things in common: massive government power and the fact that they answer to only one person: Barack Obama. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in such a way that such power would not emanate from one person without confirmation by the Senate. Clearly, that doesn't matter in the least to the President.

In February, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and third in line to the presidency, wrote a letter to Obama, criticizing his "strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy," saying it "violates both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight."

Representative Jack Kingston (GA) is pushing for a law that requires any funding to be withheld from the czars unless they are confirmed by the Senate, not just appointed by Barack Obama: "I'm committed to ensuring these czars are put through the constitutionally-mandated process by which we review executive appointments and have offered an amendment that would withhold funding from any czar unless they are confirmed by the Senate."

source: www.visionamericaaction.org

[bonnie]

This either has to fall under Hope and Change or the Most Transparent Presidency ever.

I wonder if many will actually see much wrong with this picture?

[carolaa]

I share the concerns about this issue. But I think a lot of these czars are supposed to be temporary positions, so it's a better alternative than creating new government bureaucrasies that will be much harder to eliminate. I'm willing to give it some time to see how it pans out. Obama is smart, that's for sure. I don't blame him for being disgusted with the partisan process of confirming appointees and figuring a way around it.

[Dr. Shane]

President Obama owns the Senate. He will have no problem getting any of his appointees confirmed. Look at our Secretary of Treasury. The guy is in charge of the IRS and by his own admission didn't know how to fill out his own tax papers. He certainly isn't the sharpest crayon in the drawer but had no problem getting confirmed.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I share the concerns about this issue. But I think a lot of these czars are supposed to be temporary positions

When have you seen a temporary measure increasing the power of a politician or president be temporary?

Quote:

so it's a better alternative than creating new government bureaucrasies that will be much harder to eliminate

I didn't realize it was an either or situation. Was there something that said we either had to create 30 some bureaucrasies or step over the constitution?

You think 30 some new czars with 10+ staff and a nice cushy salary is going to be easy to dismantle? They are here to stay.

Quote:

I'm willing to give it some time to see how it pans out. Obama is smart, that's for sure. I don't blame him for being disgusted with the partisan process of confirming appointees and figuring a way around it.

Many are willing to see how ignoring the constitution works.

The "Obama is smart" phrase is often used to describe Obama. Ignoring the constitution is not a sign of intelligence.

It is probably a comfort to Obama that many that support him will understand the process of ignoring the constitutional constraints of a power grab by the president.

We all know that he wouldn't have to do that if he wasn't afraid of being opposed.