Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional

[belme1201]

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...

I think you will find the Dems are more likely to oversee their own than the Republicans did. It is obvious that Dem pols don't march in lockstep with party line to the same degree as do GOP Congressmen. I think it is also a fact that those that call themselves Dems, Progressives, Independents, or whatever are more supportive of oversight and adherence and policing of existing regulations than are Republicans during a GOP administration
Regarding the czars, I'm not sure of the power given them, but I doubt that they have the power to override or bypass Congress on legislative issues. If that is the case, what are they if not merely advisors on specific issues or sounding boards for problems that have arisen in their area of expertise? Was it Obama that gave them the title of 'czars'? Who gave it that terminology? I suspect an invented "talking points" issue.
It's my belief that it is the total dearth of oversight and ignoring of regulation during the bush administration that led to the "czar" situation you are complaining about, if so, it just may be a good idea.
I think Byrd, rightfully, fired a shot across the President's bow to make sure the administration doesn't forget that there is now a Congress that will pursue oversight and that values its Consitutional duties.

 

[Onceler]

Ah...the ol' Damo fallback. "You used to be so (insert glowing adjective here), before your partisan fall from grace..."

No one has really changed, Damo. If you could make a decent argument, you'd see that; on this thread, you haven't. You have only sought to find some glaring double-standard where none exists.

 

[Bonestorm]

*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.

All I'm asking for is just a little bit of evidence to support the various assertions you've made in this thread and maybe an attempt at a rebuttal for my point that Feinberg, as an inferior officer of the Treasury Department reporting to the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (nominated and confirmed by the Senate and subject to congressional oversight), is not a very good example of using presidential advisors and assistants to avoid congressional scrutiny.

Oh, and I'll point out again that I agree with Byrd, but that this latest hire at Treasury is not problematic for the reasons I have stated.

And feel sad all you like and try to tar me as akin to a Bush supporter all you like. Personally, I'm not surprised by your behavior at all. You're the same hack you've always been still pretending you aren't.

 

[Damocles]

All I'm asking for is just a little bit of evidence to support the various assertions you've made in this thread and maybe an attempt at a rebuttal for my point that Feinberg, as an inferior officer of the Treasury Department reporting to the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (nominated and confirmed by the Senate and subject to congressional oversight), is not a very good example of using presidential advisors and assistants to avoid congressional scrutiny.

Oh, and I'll point out again that I agree with Byrd, but that this latest hire at Treasury is not problematic for the reasons I have stated.

And feel sad all you like and try to tar me as akin to a Bush supporter all you like. Personally, I'm not surprised by your behavior at all. You're the same hack you've always been still pretending you aren't.

The last sentence here, the "I know you are but what am I" defense, is childish silliness.

Just as you have no evidence of your dismissal of concerns, one does not have evidence of the problems this can create until they play out.

"Do you have evidence of your predictions that this could cause a problem?"

No, they are predictions, and are clearly stated in the original 'piece' that you pretend to be incapable of reading without my help.

I believe that Obama's Administration works to circumvent congressional authority by use of "czars", I think that it is a mistake to refuse to recognize it, and that it will cause problems for us in the future. I agree with Byrd that this is problematic.

And the original 'piece' is about more than just this hire, it speaks of the number of "czars", and how they circumvent congressional oversight.