Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional
- Thread starter meme
- Start date
Again, for the reading comprehension-challenged:
" 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"
Right. As if you have followed that particular advise in this thread.
I read what you said. You ignore the very different way this President uses the "czar" position, even when it is directly pointed out to you, even by D Leadership, and excuse them directly circumventing what you used to be on Bush about, congressional oversight. I'm good with that.
I fully comprehend, and predicted this. Two or so months before the election I asked if the Ds who had been so careful watching for oversight and for overstepping Executive authority would excuse the same action from this President (yeah, I knew then that the Rs would lose). I guess I have my answer...
Right. As if you have followed that particular advise in this thread.
I read what you said. You ignore the very different way this President uses the "czar" position, even when it is directly pointed out to you, even by D Leadership, and excuse them directly circumventing what you used to be on Bush about, congressional oversight. I'm good with that.
I fully comprehend, and predicted this. Two or so months before the election I asked if the Ds who had been so careful watching for oversight and for overstepping Executive authority would excuse the same action from this President (yeah, I knew then that the Rs would lose). I guess I have my answer...
Please explain the very different way this president uses the czar position.
1. bush wouldn't know what a czar is.
2. He had Cheney as his Grand Wazir, or is it Cheney had him?
3. The GOP permits no Congressional oversight during a GOP administration.
Read the original post, it's already been explained. Thank you for participating.
This President uses the position, and appoints so many, to circumvent congressional oversight.
Number 3 is where my point lies in this thread, Onceler. If you note the complaint, but then in his opinion the same activity by another is just icing on his tasty cake...
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. The jackass in the original post is using a letter from February to criticize an action taken in June and hasn't got the slightest clue what he's talking about.
It was answered.
Read the thread then. I've pointed out several times that he appoints so many to circumvent congressional oversight, you know, the same point Byrd made in his letter. That it is now June, and there are more "czars", doesn't change that point.
You're welcome.
You haven't pointed anything out. You've asserted, without explanation or any examples, that Obama has "appointed so many to circumvent congressional oversight." You've also asserted, without explanation or any examples, that Obama has used the "czar" position very differently from previous presidents. I'm simply asking for evidence and examples. Surely you can provide some since there are "so many" and Obama's use of "czars" is very different from previous presidents.
You also cite to the Byrd letter in support of your position but Byrd's letter offers no support. Instead, it describes how past Presidents used advisors and assistants (the word "czar" doesn't even appear in the letter) to avoid congressional oversight and recommends some course s of action for Obama so that he may not go down the same path.
Please, I've repeated Byrd's opinion, and agree with it. Examples were provided in the original article, it is what we've been discussing. In that original article it points out the authority given to the "czars" as well as the much larger number of them, and explains how it circumvents congressional oversight, how in the past there wasn't much of an issue because of the small number of them, and now the much larger number is problematic. It is silly to continue to request a repeat of the same thing in each post, no conversation would ever progress if we had to do that. Since this is the written word, and the previous words are still there, one can easily just say, "read the original post" rather than repeat it.
The original piece (it's not an article) raises one example, Kenneth Feinberg. I'm not too good at math, but one doesn't equal "so many." Nor does it substantiate the claim that Obama's use of "czars" is unprecedented.
And that's crediting the belief that Feinberg fits the criteria of a person hired on as a presidential advisor or assistant to perform functions that cabinet level officers perform but without the congressional oversight typical of a cabinet officer. In fact, Feinberg doesn't meet the criteria. He isn't a presidential advisor or assistant. He is a Treasury Department inferior officer that reports to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Basically, you're full of shit.
Edit: And you haven't repeated Byrd's opinion. You've repeated what you believe to be Byrd's opinion based on what others told you it was.
Then you didn't read the whole of the original post.
The first line of which is:
(italics and bold are mine.)
Which pretty well summarizes the 'piece' as it goes further into detail on each point as it goes, including mentioning the much larger number of "czars" appointed by Obama in comparison to other Presidents, how they circumvent congressional oversight, why this could be problematic, and what may result.
I can't believe that I am "reading" a 'piece' to you, because you refuse to comprehend it otherwise. My children do better than this.
I read the original post and it, like you, offers not a single shred of evidence in support of the argument it is presenting. That's why I asked you to support your argument. The original author didn't do it. You aren't doing it. With so many czars and such an unprecedented use of the "position" I thought maybe you could give me some evidence. I guess I'll just accept that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. As usual.
And I see that you stayed far far away from the fact that Feinberg, the one "czar" mentioned in the original piece is actually an inferior officer in the Treasury Department that reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, not a White House assistant or advisor that Byrd finds problematic.
*sigh*
Just plain inane. Repeating this silliness doesn't change that the original 'piece' does support its premise, does state why, who, how...
:shakes head:
I feel sad. You used to impress me as one of the intelligent people, nowadays all you are is the opposite side of the Bush supporter coin.