Senate Schedules Hearing on History and Legality of Presidential “Czars”
EmailSen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., announced today that his Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing “Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch 'Czars'” on Tuesday October 6.
Earlier this month the liberal lawmaker asked the White House to identify the czars' "roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause" in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the President "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."
Previous presidents have made ample use of the privilege to appoint executive branch experts who are not confirmed by the Senate and oversee one particular area, but experts say President Obama has done so to an unprecedented degree.
In April, David Rothkopf wrote at the Foreign Policy blog with the appointment of a Border Czar, President Obama had more czars than the Romanovs.
-jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
How is this helping Michelle’s kids?
Posted by: Martin | September 29, 2009, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
“more czars than the Romanovs.” Well, yeah, considering there was only a single Czar of Russia at a time, great call.
Posted by: tomjd | September 29, 2009, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
Really? Where was Jake Tapper, I wonder when President Bush appointed all those Czars?
I mean, first of all, it’s the media that calls them Czars for the most part. It’s a short term that avoids having to use the actual title these people hold, like Deputy something or other. It’s a distraction, and what’s more some of them have been confirmed by the senate.
That said, now that the issue is out, fine lets deal with it, but I just wonder where all these journalists where when President Bush was in office, or better yet, Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan who appointed the Drug Czar.
Posted by: Sigh | September 29, 2009, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
This is a good move. Probably wise to look at going forward. Some of these current czars have links to extreme left-wing organizations; are avowed Communist; deep ties to SEIU and/or ACORN. Some very radical and incite class or race “warfare”. Or they would have flown under the radar.
Posted by: Nikki | September 29, 2009, 5:45 pm 5:45 pm
The President of the United States can hire any advisers or other staff he wants to. As long as they don’t take the law into their own hands, I don’t see the problem. The issue of Congressional approval is interesting, but also rather arbitrary. There have always been powerful advisers who did not have Congressional approval.
Posted by: jock59801 | September 29, 2009, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm
Good for the Senate. It seems obvious to me that the President is allowed to listen to who ever he wants in doing his job, but it is the Senate’s job to oversee the Executive branch. Have a hearing, air the issues, and let the public know what’s going on. Far better a Senate hearing that to allow absurd mudslinging by radicals who deliberately play stupid about what these positions are for ratings.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 29, 2009, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
“Good for the Senate. It seems obvious to me that the President is allowed to listen to who ever he wants in doing his job, but it is the Senate’s job to oversee the Executive branch. Have a hearing, air the issues, and let the public know what’s going on. Far better a Senate hearing that to allow absurd mudslinging by radicals who deliberately play stupid about what these positions are for ratings.”
I was thinking much the same thing.
Posted by: Ryan C | September 29, 2009, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
right wing mudslinging radicals….who happened to hit the nail on the head more than a few times. i suppose evry squirrel finds an ACORN sometime.
Posted by: catman | September 29, 2009, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
I hope this committee will get to the bottom of the czar mess and put an end to the practice of bypassing congressional oversight that was designed to help put checks and balances on the executive branch.
Posted by: SjB | September 29, 2009, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm
Michelle’s kids are use to this kind of rogue house hold. According to the obama’s next door neighbor’s,in Chicago, the gentleman stated he “felt sorry” for obama, that he was henpecked by his mother-in-law,michelle and most disturbing, his own children. He was a nice enough man but didn’t have anything good to say about michelle her mother or his kids. He does exactly what michelle tells him, she rules the house hold. You know, the same way that hillary did with Bill.
Posted by: GRITS | September 29, 2009, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
I guess we could have the circus of the Czars!
Posted by: Jeff | September 29, 2009, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm
finally some people are beginning to wake up. What has been interesting to me is how the same tactics, methods, laws, and policies that were protested against and villified under Bush are praised -or at least ignored- under this character Obama. Granted some people (Codepink etc) are beginning to realize and wakeup when they see wars still being fought and even escalated. But nobody complains about Obama’s centralized databases, his surveillence schemes, his unlimited detention policies, his executive orders, his “czars”, his wars, his bailouts for friendly companies, and so on…..
Posted by: Ed | September 29, 2009, 7:01 pm 7:01 pm
jhw and Ryan C, where have you been? It’s been about a week now. Funny how you seem to disappear and reappear at the same time.
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | September 29, 2009, 7:18 pm 7:18 pm
He does exactly what michelle tells him, she rules the house hold. You know, the same way that hillary did with Bill.
___________________________________
The Obama smear artists are getting more and more pathetic . .
Posted by: tierra | September 29, 2009, 7:21 pm 7:21 pm
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | Sep 29, 2009 7:18:52 PM
ROFLMAO!
The right winger who constantly changes their name to sock puppet is engaging in quite a bit of projection.
Posted by: Ryan C | September 29, 2009, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
Ryan, how would you know who changes their name and who doesn’t. Yes, I canged my name so what? I don’t post under the old name anymore so it’s not like I’m pretending to be two different people posting on the same blog. I thinks it good to change names every now and then. FYI, I don’t do it constantly.I really don’t need to explain myself to you. I have made an observation, you choose to attack me instead of answer which is your method of operation. You never seem to beable to defend your position rationally, just name call and attack. No big deal, no suprise! We are all use to it.I have read posts where you accuse people of posting under multiple names. Ever hear the childhood saying “takes one to know one”?
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | September 29, 2009, 8:04 pm 8:04 pm
The czars are perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional. The extent of their use simply relects a given president’s true commitment to transparency, and his confidence or lack of confidence in himself and his cabinet.
End of story.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 29, 2009, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm
“jhw and Ryan C, where have you been? It’s been about a week now. Funny how you seem to disappear and reappear at the same time.”
whatsgoingonhere? | Sep 29, 2009 7:18:52 PM
? Work picked up and my daughter seems to have just realized that she is firmly in the terrible twos. Don’t be expecting to see me around much for a while. No idea about Ryan C.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 29, 2009, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
“Buy health insurance or go to jail.”
This is what today’s Democratic party stands for.
And they don’t deny it.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 29, 2009, 8:40 pm 8:40 pm
I guess we are all agreed that the congress, the IRS, the banks and ACORN itself acted rashly in response to those possibly doctored videotapes. After all, Fox hadn’t even been forced to release the full tapes, and ACORN was really starting to get traction with the argument that the tapes were altered.
Go figure.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 29, 2009, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
“Czar” is the term Jake uses to describe executive branch advisors. It is not what their position it. Jake can call as many people czars as he wants, it doesn’t confer that title on them.
Bush had more. I don’t know who Jakes ‘experts’ are, because he conveniently doesn’t tell us (although that in itself DOES tell us something), but Its a load of turdblossom (get it- one of Bush’s ‘czars’ ha ha).
What Obama needs is a person specifically assigned to refute garbage that people like Jake make up. Call it a reality czar, if you will.
Posted by: Flash Override | September 29, 2009, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
my daughter seems to have just realized that she is firmly in the terrible twos.
***
Good luck. It’s adorable and not-so all at the same time, but it keeps you sharp!!
Posted by: Alyson | September 29, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
“Good for the Senate. It seems obvious to me that the President is allowed to listen to who ever he wants in doing his job, but it is the Senate’s job to oversee the Executive branch. Have a hearing, air the issues, and let the public know what’s going on. Far better a Senate hearing that to allow absurd mudslinging by radicals who deliberately play stupid about what these positions are for ratings.”
I was thinking much the same thing.
Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 29, 2009 5:53:38 PM
***
Me three :>)
Posted by: Alyson | September 29, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
Flash, Tappers “experts” are kind of like Obama’s “world leader” you know the one who asked about the pictures of O with the Hitler mustache. come on now be fair. What good for the goose and all that…..
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | September 29, 2009, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
Now that the president has been publicly accused by Sarkozy of being a cheese-eating surrender monkey on the issue of Iranian nukes, will he have the courage of a JFK to say simply, “the United States of America will not allow this. Beginning tomorrow, no gasoline will enter Iran?”
No, he will not, He does not like to exert American military force/-indeed, he seems to think that it is wrong to do so.
Worse than Carter.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 29, 2009, 11:34 pm 11:34 pm
This formation of a shadow government is both dangerous and un-Constitutional. These czars are accountable to no one outside the President a ywet wield enormous power over us.
Carol Browner’s controlling every aspect of our lives is one such example.
It has to be stopped.
Posted by: drjohn | September 30, 2009, 7:25 am 7:25 am
“Bush had more.”
Depends on if you are referring to a “czar” as a title or as someone who has held a position with “czar” title.
Bush’s “Czars” (over 8 year period):
- ~46 “czars” who filled a total of ~33 titles/positions
- 22 of these ~46 “czars” were confirmed by Senate
- At end of term (2008) only 20 of the “czar” titles/positions were active (balance discontinued)
Obama’s “Czars” (9 months):
- ~34 “czars” who filled a total of ~34 titles/positions
- 9 of these 34 “czars” were confirmed by Senate
See the difference?
- In 9 MONTHS Obama has ~34 “czar” positions/titles (Bush had ~33 in 8 YEARS)
- Only 9 of the ~34 Obama “czar” positions require Senate confirmation (which is why some members of the Senate have raised concerns)
So, from a position/title standpoint (which more accurately reflects level of activity), OBAMA HAS MORE CZARS!
Posted by: tjp612 | September 30, 2009, 8:48 am 8:48 am
“This formation of a shadow government is both dangerous and un-Constitutional. These czars are accountable to no one outside the President a ywet wield enormous power over us.”
__________________________________
Nonsense, these people are simply advisors to the President and have no legislative power whatsoever. These advisors have been used for many years – and constitute no threat to the constitution whatsoever.
This is just another hysterical talking point from the right wing in an attempt to smear the President.
You didn’t hear this squawking when Bush was President and used the same types of advisors.
So, hypocrisy and smearing in action again.
Posted by: tierra | September 30, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
When comparing what presidents did previously, we need to compare the responsibilities of the previous “czars” not just the number. If the “czar” is just a focal point-person to target a specific area and just advises the president without any executive responsibilities, that is absolutely constitutional. But if the “czar” is given cabinet-like duties, with a staff, a budget, makes executive decisions, and has the authority to independently change policy, then that person should require senate confirmation.
Posted by: James Danley | September 30, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
What is funny many presidents had czars and now you are questioning them? Why not before? Oh, I get it…another thing to attack Obama on. No other president has been second guessed like this one and it is not because he is not qualified or smart…it is because…let me see….black?
Posted by: talmag | September 30, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
talmag, YAWN!
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | September 30, 2009, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm