And so on.
At the rate we're going, we'll soon need a czar czar, to make sure all the little czars are doing their job.
Charlie Dent says enough already. He has signed onto legislation to revoke funding for the Administration’s “czars.” This legislation, H.R. 3226 - the Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act, was introduced by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA).
The problem with all these czars running all over the place is they are exercising significant authority without having their appointments confirmed by the Senate, as required by the Appointments Clause. pursuant to the laws of the United States be appointed in the manner prescribed by the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2).
“Although their actual job descriptions suggest they are subordinate to Cabinet members, this is merely window-dressing,” Congressman Dent said. “The term ‘czar’ implies absolute power, something that should already raise warning flags in a nation built on the principle of separation of powers. In town halls in my district throughout August, I heard from countless constituents who are alarmed by the number of ‘czars’ in the Administration and the broad powers they are exercising.
“There are times and issues where it is necessary for departments and agencies to coordinate across their jurisdictional boundaries. I understand the need for an officer who will oversee those efforts. But these individuals must be accountable and their actions must be transparent. This legislation will restore the checks and balances that are crucial to our representative democracy.”
Ironically, the media first used the term "czar" to unflatteringly describe certain Presidential advisors during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. However, no recent administration has had more than three or four such officials – and those officials, such as the “drug czar,” were visible and accountable. A lack of oversight distinguishes the “czars” in the Obama Administration.
“I believe the President has every right to name advisors and Cabinet officials he wants, provided they have no significant legal issues or other problematic history,” Congressman Dent said. “But he has an obligation to get Senate approval for individuals who wield significant authority to shape policy for the American people.”
The first czar ever appointed was by Nixon...another great Republican legacy. I would do away with any lingering legacies from that Administration. Amen.
ReplyDeleteLike the EPA ?
ReplyDeleteScott Armstrong
O'Hare Disbarred for "Evil Intent" Activity
ReplyDeleteObama hires moronic "truthers" who design policy based on X-Files reruns. Why not the same indignation as that (righeously) aimed at imbecilic "birthers?"
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:16 -
ReplyDeleteWhen Obama appoints a "birther" as a czar, I'll be sure to speak out about it.
For now, why don't we focus on the many radicals who have been given powerful positions within this administration.
Dent is the king of focusing on obscure side issues that no one is worried about....he is the czar of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
ReplyDelete"Do away with lingering legacies from Nixon":
ReplyDeleteHow about Title IX?
The Emmaus field hockey team would probably go for that given the recent performance of William Allen's male goalie the other day.
:)
9:40 must be an imbecilic birther.
ReplyDeleteBirthers. Truthers. nUtZ, both.
Van Jones the radical communist 9/11 Truther
ReplyDeleteWhat a treat.
Check out HIS speeches. (how is this guy NOT racist?)
Yay - Valery Jarrett
Yay - Obama
How many Czars are we up to now, like 34? (seriously)
Yay - America
:(
Do away with lingering legacies of Nixon Administration
ReplyDelete- EPA
- Title XI
Okay, Liberals, you have the super majority. Get to work! Start with these two.
May I be a pedant and point out that there is nothing remotely communist about the title of "Czar."
ReplyDeleteYes, it's Russian. But it's from the country's monarchist period, which ended with the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
There's a reason why Nicholas II (Romanov) is called the last czar. They didn't have any more after him.
It's a Russian derivative of "Caesar," by the way -- the title formally bestowed on all Roman emperors.
This is not a judgment on the use of the czar title in the American political dialogue. Just a quick history lesson.
Yr. Bloggy Pal,
John Micek
By the way the the W Bush administration appointed or created more czar positions than all others, why were there no complaints for the last 8 years? It is the media that calls them Czars in the White House they are called Special Assistants to the President. Again, much ado about nothing, another silly distraction for those with short attention spans. Silly season continues
ReplyDeleteJohn, this is not the place to be peddaling truth or history. You will give the oharniacs a headache. The angry priest may even curse you.
ReplyDeleteA priest worth anything, wouldn't curse anyone. Even those who would spit in his face.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, you already know that. That's why you talk like you do. That's the easy part. Now let's see you walk the walk. It isn't easy being a Christian.
Peace, ~~Alex
John, Um, the Russian Communists killed the Czar. Dent wants to kill the czars. That's why I think he must be a Commie.
ReplyDeleteToo many Czars but NEVER enough lobbyists for Congress.....
ReplyDeleteAh..you have to get a laugh out of the Birthers. What the heck ever happened to the Swiftboaters? There are some striking similarities. Don't you think?
ReplyDeleteSo instead of getting to yell "You lie!" on national TV, Dent gets stuck delivering the daily whine -- this time, about czars. Not much to show for his time in DC.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the trend towards "czars". I do not think it was right when Bush did it and now I don't like Obama doing it. The use of these "czars" should have been curtailed a long time ago. I would like to see more congressional oversight. Both political parties in this country need to stop using the argument that the other guys do it too. That argument is unproductive and prevents needed changes from happening. I am not a democrat but the most democrats ran saying they wanted to change Washington for the better. Creating more oversight for these positions is a change I could get behind. If the democrats could change this now it would prevent republicans or any other party for that matter from doing the same thing to increase their power when (if) the political pendulum swings back their way. Maintaining checks and balancesis a good thing.
ReplyDeleteCW
Did the other presidents get their czars approved by Congress? It seems to me that's the sticking point here - not that Obama has czars, but that he's bypassing Congress and possibly violating the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe three 'R's", are at it again.
ReplyDeleteRude, Racist and Republican!
always a pet-peeve of mine...how un-American to use the term "czars" for positions in our United States government. Whether by Republicans or Democrats, it is an insult to the enlightened ideas we are founded on, as well as those who have died defending our republic. I didn't like when it was used during Reagan's terms, and I don't like it now.
ReplyDeleteBern:
ReplyDeleteMy mistake for not reading closely enough.
It's just a pet peeve of mine when people scream "commie" at the mention of the word czar.
It would be more historically accurate to scream "repressive monarchist regime!" when the word is mentioned. :)
Yr. 'Bloggy Pal.
JLM
The Republicans are the commies and the Democrats are the Repressive Monarchist Regime?
ReplyDeleteI feel like Rip Van Winkle -- what else happened while I was asleep?