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. 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.
Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional. But it never built to a critical mass to elicit a court fight. These czars were few and far between, and rarely did anything that seriously ruffled any feathers. But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime.
This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.
Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)
And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.
Feel free to find your own reading on this.
Do YOU think this should go on further? These people who ONLY go to Obama? Who are in HIGH positions of power throughout various fields? I don't. Sounds like the making of something really really baad.
i haven't done any more reading on this than what you copypasta'd, and i think it would be important to know what the other "czars" are in charge of, but i see no issue with someone who can adjust the executive pay scale or companies receiving goverment money. executives make an obscene amount of money, and that money should not be coming from the goverment. if you lack the ability to steer your company reasonably out of harms way, then you shouldn't be compensated as well as some of these retards are. i mean really. they get payed to sign a few papers, be the public scapegoat and schmooze with other powerful people. why the hell are they being payed that much to do that?
surely congress could agree on that. and approve that. i think these people need to have congressional approval.
But something bad with that is those businesses AND states that receive bailout money are subject to paycontrol. And this can be abused in such a way that if those companies, banks, and states don't do what Obama and his team want them to do, their pay can be cut tremendously.
On the other hand, if these businesses play "nice" and to their standards, then they are rewarded.
Imho, it is a threat and a way to control all major businesses and corporations.
Here is one list. Some of these are bullshit and a way to, again in my honest opinion, monopolize the economy and a loophole to evade congress.
And I agree, congress SHOULD approve.
Unfortunately though, they don't have to be approved by congress...The only thing that can be done is for the SENATE to vote on them (specifically voting on if they are constitutional), which is majority democrat =/ Doubt anything will be done in that regard unless the people begin speaking out.
Yeah they can. But the supreme court chooses which cases they want to hear and they can postpone hearing this case for years if they wished to.
Also, there is nothing in the constitution about czars =/ So if this jury decides that they ARE constitutional and allows Obama to keep making them and have the current ones retain their power, we are fucked. I wouldn't want THIS jury deciding that =/ I mean, we were 5-4 on our gun rights...I don't want to chance THIS with our Supreme Court.
But anyway...right now, it is up to the senate to challenge the czars I think. At least that is what I read :o
they're from a german pop band called djenghis khan or something. the song is about moscow, but it's in german. that's why they're doing a russian-y dance, because the song is about moscow.
Linear Mode
