Can anyone list one good reason why Obama feels the need to appoint so many different “Czars”? These “Czars” don’t have to answer to ANYONE but him. Not the Congress. Not the Senate. Certainly not the PEOPLE. These select few can tell people how much they can earn, what car they will drive…the list goes on. And what they decree can not be appealed in any way.
For the life of me, I can only think of one reason for these positions. UNHINDERED CONTROL AT THE HANDS OF A DICTATOR.
Does Obama have more czars or fewer czars then previous presidents? As I recall, the “czar” title goes back at least as far as Reagan, though similar appointments (to coordinate the so-called “war on drugs”) go as far back as Nixon.
I’m sorry, what ? If anything, delegating power to trusted people is the exact opposite of ruthless dictatorship. Call us when Obama appoints himself president for life or something.
Part of it is, like so much else, Joe Biden’s big mouth. Biden was, in 1982, the first one to use the term “drug czar” to refer to the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Since that time, the term has been expanded to cover executive branch officials in charge of specific policy who are appointed by the president.
While some people (especially Congress) don’t like it because these officials don’t need Senate confirmation, and so the president can put whatever yahoo he wants in charge, it’s not “unhindered control at the hands of a dictator.” These people still only have the power that’s granted to the executive branch. And the decisions aren’t unappealable. To take the example of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 2000, the FCC found that it had been using money to sponsor anti-drug messages in tv shows without disclosing that, and made them stop the practice. In 2005, the GAO found that they had been producing false news stories that were being run as real news, and made them stop that practice. These decisions can also be appealed to the courts.
“Czar” is one of those bad terms that we are, unfortunately, stuck with. It should not be taken literally. I don’t know what the right number of “czars” is, but it seems to me that Obama has inherited a need for increased government control of the economy (or at least certain segments of it), and hence the need for these “czars”.
Normally I would be opposed to something like the “czar” who oversees executive pay, but as long as we are using public money to keeps those failing enterprises afloat, then it’s not such an unreasonable thing to do. At some point, you just have to trust Obama to do the right thing and to change course if it looks like things are working out as planned. I’m willing to trust him, at least for now.
I know, it’s a strange terminology. You’d expect the drug lords to report to the drug czar, but really there’s that enmity. I guess it’s like Ivan the Terrible and the boyars.
Wikipedia is of no help. It says Nixon had a “Drugs Czar”, but also says Biden first coined the term in 1982. Maybe they are using the term retroactively in Nixon’s case…?
Huh? Being appointed a “Czar” is a completely meaningless title - it has no power whatsoever. So if Obama’s “Czar of Paychecks and Cars” tries to tell you how much you can earn or what kind of car to drive, you can appeal his decision by ignoring it. The Czar has no means to enforce his decisions.
The PEOPLE get to HOLD elections every four years, so I’m pretty SURE the “Czars” have to answer to SOMEONE.
Also, while I HAVEN’T been FOLLOWING the appointments as CLOSELY as I’d like, I’m pretty SURE that none have UNHINDERED CONTROL to tell me what KIND of car I can drive or what KIND of income I can earn.
Since I PASSED basic high school CIVICS, I’m aware that the PRESIDENT is in charge of the EXECUTIVE branch – the branch of government charged with EXECUTING the laws. As such, all presidents have had great DISCRETION (though Clinton was rather lacking in that department) to FREELY appoint sub-cabinet staff to ADMINISTER various aspects of his ADMINISTRATION. That Barack “HUSSEIN” Obama is appointing CAPABLE people to carry out his WILL under the confines and constraints of the LEGISLATION that set up the various administrations a GOOD THING.
If one of his “Czars” does order SOMEONE to do something, that SOMEONE will have what is called “STANDING” to challenge Barry’s AUTHORITY to make such an order. At that point the “COURTS” will determine whether the AUTHORITY is vested in CONSTITUTIONAL presidential powers or LEGISLATIVELY granted powers. If no such authority EXISTS, the courts will NULLIFY the LAW – which will either be called ACTIVISM if don’t agree with the outcome or CORRECT if you do. CONGRESS can also act to curtail PRESIDENTIAL authority in many areas. These are just a FEW of the CHECKS AND BALANCES ON DICTATORSHIP THAT EXIST IN NON-AM RADIO AMERICA.
In life you may find it useful to educate yourself if you find something so outrageous that it makes you want to type in allcaps. Most likely you have been informed incorrectly about some details.
Take now for instance. You appear to have been misinformed by someone very stupid or perhaps very dishonest. You are up in arms and seem to be mad as hell, yet it is because you’re giving credence to the lies you’ve chosen to believe.
If you had simply bothered to research about this instead of taking such far fetched claims as gospel, you might not have posted such an embarrassingly silly thread.
I realize that this is a rather liberal board, but maybe someone can tell me this.
When did the executive branch receive the power to bail out private business with taxpayer money without a vote of the people, then take over the private business they bailed out and dictate to them what they would do, how they would do it, how many of their stores could remain open and how much their executives would be allowed to make? Exactly what date did that happen? Because somewhere along the line, I must have missed it.
BACHMANN: What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08?
GEITHNER: Oh, well, the -- the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities.
BACHMANN: Sir, in the Constitution. What -- what in the Constitution could you point to to -- to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?
GEITHNER: Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is -- is -- has been using authority granted by this body -- by this body, the Congress.
BACHMANN: And by -- in the Constitution, what could you point to?
GEITHNER: Under the laws of the land, of course.
What Secretary Geithner said. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which gives the president those powers, was passed on October 3rd, 2008. The act may well be unconstitutional. However, laws have a presumption of constitutionality, and unless and until the Supreme Court rules the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act unconstitutional, it is the law of the land.
When you accept government aid, the government gets to tell you a great deal about what to do. That’s how it always works. And those exectives only still have a job because the government came in.
Besides, without that, what’s to stop those executives from simply pocketing any aid the government gives and letting the company burn to the ground ?
Has the Senate approved these appointments or allowed them by law? If so, who cares if he has 500 “czars”. If not, then Obama is violating the Constitution.