The people voted for Congress. Congress voted on the bailouts. See how that works? It called “representative democracy”. It’s how our republic gets things done without holding a special election for every piece of legislation that is proposed.
Don’t like the bailout? Vote for a congressman and two senators who agree with you. Power to the people!
*South Dakota v Dole *(1987)
This SCOTUS decision allows the federal government wide discretion in legislation by pursestrings as long as it serves a public interest.
“But wait, Cad!” you say. “The ‘public interest’ that the Federal government is allowed is limited by the Tenth Amendment.” Ever since the switch in time that saved nine (SCOTUS’s change in policy and completely ignoring stare decises (sp?) after the FDR court packing scheme) in 1937 starting with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, the Tenth Amendment has been de facto repealed.
As for a nationwide vote, the is no allowances for that in the Constitution for either a proposition or referendum process. I believe that Clinton v. City of New York (1998) could easily be expanded to cover the unconstitutionality of such a process.
In some cases. In others, they’re White House staff that don’t require senate confirmation.
Where do you get the idea that some mid-level White House staffer is telling you what car you will drive? If this is indeed the case, what specific car are we being told to drive, anyway?
White cars; Obama is turning us into a white carnation.
I say we should require an IQ test to vote.
Do White House staff czars have any power in implementing policy (violates the Constitution if not confirmed by Senate or by law as per previous post, blah blah blah if rash develops discontinue use) or are they merely advisors.
Honest question as I really don’t know.
I’m afraid I have to forward this to the Random Capitalization Czar.
If you are interested in the topic in general, you may find skimming through the Plum Book (United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions) fascinating.
No, I thought I remember Simon as ‘Energy Czar’ because Doonesbury made a big deal of it.
This article from Time references him as such in 1972. So, shockingly, wikipedia is dodgy on the timeline.
Here’s a timeline http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/retro/timeline/1970.html It says it happens in 1974.
It may be a case where Truedeau introduced the meaning to the discussion and it stuck. That’d be a hoot.
You too, Jonathan? I was trying to find the cartoon, and gave up.
Anyhow, SaintCad, the ones who have the power were ratified by senate, those who are mere advisors were appointed. The term is just a shorthand for ‘that guy over there who’s the top guy about this.’
The proliferation of czars concerns me. Soon we shall need a Czar Czar.
May God bless and keep the Czars…far away from us!
The head of business development for Obama: “Biz-Czar”.
The head of the department of agriculture; sheep division: “Baa-Czar”
The head of the Navy: “Sea Czar”
The head of Communist Affairs: “Der Commie Czar”
The nurse who takes his vitals during a checkup: “Pulse Czar”.
Please don’t derail this thread with your Czarcastic posts.
Oh czar, har, har.
I suggest Zsa Zsa Gabor to become Czar Czar. She’ll be known as Czar Czar Zsa Zsa Gabor.
That was funny, but isn’t she dead? Maybe Jar Jar Binks is available…
But the thing is, “czar” isn’t really a job, it’s a description used by the media to describe someone in the executive who is in charge of policy for just about anything. Some of them are in charge of policy, some are advisers, etc. And a lot (most?) of the people in the St Pete Times article above referred to as Czar’s have jobs that required senate confirmation.
She’s still alive. Link