Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional

meme

New member
But, I thought our Dear Leader could do anything he wants..
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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?)


read the rest..
http://560wind.townhall.com/columni...r_democrat_says_obamas_czars_unconstitutional
 
If they are unconstitutional, stop pussyfooting around and take it to court. If not court, then impeach him.

we all know that the democrats in congress are not going to do this, right?
 
If they are unconstitutional, stop pussyfooting around and take it to court. If not court, then impeach him.

we all know that the democrats in congress are not going to do this, right?



I'd love to see impeachment....can't wait.the sooner the better for our country and us American citizens.
 
But, I thought our Dear Leader could do anything he wants..
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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?)


read the rest..
http://560wind.townhall.com/columni...r_democrat_says_obamas_czars_unconstitutional[/quote

There is nothing in the Constitution saying he can do this. I've said it before on this very board. He has over-stepped his boundaries.
 
This is pretty funny. It's not everyday that you seem the authority of Robert Byrd invoked by conservatives on this board. Usually we only hear about Byrd's KKK days.

In any event, I'll repeat what I said when Byrd's letter actually qualified as news: to the extent Obama is using presidential "advisors" to avoid the nomination and confirmation process required of constitutional officers, it is inappropriate and Byrd is correct to call attention to it. To the extent these guys are inferior officers or employees (like the compensation guy) this is just more whining by the best in the whining business.
 
Yikes.

Could that possibly be any weaker?
Only in your bubble. The reality is, if Bush made seven zillion "czars" with no congressional oversight you'd be all on about the 'no congressional oversight' part like stink on poo. But heck, he has a "D".

You have become what you abhor. It's quite an amazing process.
 
Only in your bubble. The reality is, if Bush made seven zillion "czars" with no congressional oversight you'd be all on about the 'no congressional oversight' part like stink on poo. But heck, he has a "D".

You have become what you abhor. It's quite a process.

Actually, fact is, you can search this site 'til the cows come home, and you won't find me railing against any "czars" Bush made or proposed. Honestly, the "czar" thing never bothered me a bit under Bush or any President. There were much bigger fish to fry.

But you have turned into an absolute imbecile, so keep saying whatever you want, based only on partisan-fueled conjecture & nothing else...
 
Actually, fact is, you can search this site 'til the cows come home, and you won't find me railing against any "czars" Bush made or proposed. Honestly, the "czar" thing never bothered me a bit under Bush or any President. There were much bigger fish to fry.

But you have turned into an absolute imbecile, so keep saying whatever you want, based only on partisan-fueled conjecture & nothing else...
No, but can I find one that is against "no congressional oversight"? Mmmhmmm... Yes, I could.

The reality is, no President to this date has used the "czar" in quite the manner this President does to get around oversight.

What is imbecilic is the belief that you have somehow unlocked the non-partisan in yourself as you defend that which you used to revile.
 
No, but can I find one that is against "no congressional oversight"? Mmmhmmm... Yes, I could.

The reality is, no President to this date has used the "czar" in quite the manner this President does to get around oversight.

Stop fabricating what you "think" I'd say; it's usually wrong, and based only on your perception that I'm some kind of dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. As I said, I couldn't really care any less about the use of "czars" by any President.

And stop following me around.
 
"as you defend that which you used to revile."

Did I used to "revile" the creation of czars?

What are you basing that upon? That's a strong word to use. I would certainly like to see some proof.
 
Stop fabricating what you "think" I'd say; it's usually wrong, and based only on your perception that I'm some kind of dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. As I said, I couldn't really care any less about the use of "czars" by any President.

And stop following me around.
Following? So far we've posted only in this thread, as you've sought to defend you almost total dismissal of the concerns of leaders in one branch of the government. Most of the time I just giggle again at your next post as I see so much in them that you used to point out for those who could say no wrong against Bush. It is quite comical.
 
"as you defend that which you used to revile."

Did I used to "revile" the creation of czars?

What are you basing that upon? That's a strong word to use. I would certainly like to see some proof.
No, you used to revile the attempts to skirt congressional oversight. I know you can do it, actually read my posts... It would be nice to see you do that instead of pretending you can only comprehend certain things.
 
Back
Top