PDA

View Full Version : Legal Are Czar's Constitutional?


KC Dan
06-09-2009, 03:16 PM
Now that our Executive branch has designated no less than 16 czars, including the latest Pay Czar (the administration has named - Special Master of Compensation), I ask all - Are these czar's constitutional?

RaiderH8r
06-09-2009, 03:21 PM
I still think its funny that the commie left in America is so enamored with the appointment of various Czars.

banyon
06-09-2009, 03:23 PM
There are so many czars packed into wasington right now we'll have to start calling them czardines!

(rim shot)

Heard that one on Lou Dobbs yesterday.

Garcia Bronco
06-09-2009, 03:24 PM
I believe he can delegate which ever he wants, but executive orders are not laws and only apply to areas of the President administrative domain.

KC Dan
06-09-2009, 03:26 PM
All kidding aside because there a million jokes available but do you all feel it is constitutional? If they are only an advisor to the administration that's one thing but if they have any power at all, where does that fit in under our constitution?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/white-house-set-to-appoin_n_211668.html

BucEyedPea
06-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Do we call his wife the Czarina?

HonestChieffan
06-09-2009, 03:40 PM
Is there a list of these people and jobs?

KC Dan
06-09-2009, 03:52 PM
Is there a list of these people and jobs? May be missing one or two:
Energy czar Carol Browner
Urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Infotech czar Vivek Kundra
Faith-based czar Joshua DuBois
Health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
New TARP czar Herb Allison
Stimulus accountability czar Earl Devaney
Non-proliferation czar Gary Samore
Terrorism (I thought they didn't use that word) czar John Brennan
Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein
Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske
Guantanamo closure czar Daniel Fried
Pay czar Kenneth Feinberg
Cybersecurity czar Melissa Hathaway
Great Lakes czar Cameron Davis
Auto czar Steven Rattner

Simplex3
06-09-2009, 03:55 PM
He can appoint anyone to any retarded title he wants. They can then make any statements they want. It only becomes unconstitutional when they start using their exclusive power to use force to make us do what those czars are saying.

Congress has been slowly delegating their powers to the President over the decades. War without a declaration, laws through executive orders and departmental regulations, etc.

KC Dan
06-09-2009, 03:57 PM
I ess what worries me are statements like the below if true is unacceptable to me. What is the purpose of the cabinet appointees and their already hired staff? Did we buy-off on this and is this part of his budget reduction efforts - more salaries?

"Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html

alpha_omega
06-09-2009, 03:58 PM
I don't know about that, but it seems to me like a Czar (in this context) is just a person who tells others to do what they should already be doing.

Also....what is the faith-based czar do?

KC Dan
06-09-2009, 04:07 PM
Oh, I forgot these
Great Lakes czar Cameron Davis
Auto czar Steven Rattner

KILLER_CLOWN
06-09-2009, 04:15 PM
What about the Fema camp czar? How could we forget Rattner the rat?

mikey23545
06-09-2009, 04:28 PM
Us right-wingers will probably be telling our best czar-jokes all the way to the gulags...

KC Dan
06-09-2009, 04:31 PM
What about Article 1, Section 9, para 9 of the US Constitution:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"

Is not the title of Czar a "title of Nobility"? I know its a petty point but isn't it?

KILLER_CLOWN
06-09-2009, 04:34 PM
What about Section 9, para 9 of the US Constitution:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"

Is not the title of Czar a "title of Nobility"? I know its a petty point but isn't it?

Unnamed president "It's just a GD piece of paper"

patteeu
06-09-2009, 04:52 PM
It depends on what they're trying to do. In most cases, I'd say they are constitutional because the President can run his branch of the government as he sees fit (subject to things like the Congressional control over the pursestrings, etc.).

orange
06-09-2009, 07:47 PM
What about Article 1, Section 9, para 9 of the US Constitution:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"

Is not the title of Czar a "title of Nobility"? I know its a petty point but isn't it?

You do realize that the whole "Czar" name is just an invention of the press? Don't you?

I mean, you could have read the actual link YOU posted and seen that the so-called "Pay Czar" is actually:

"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

That is, you COULD have read it if you were actually interested in reality.
It's spring. Get some fresh air.

WoodDraw
06-09-2009, 10:59 PM
What about Article 1, Section 9, para 9 of the US Constitution:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"

Is not the title of Czar a "title of Nobility"? I know its a petty point but isn't it?

They aren't official "czars". For example, the "energy czar's" title is "Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change".

For whatever reason, that's the shorthand that's been adopted. Kind of weird, but not unconstitutional.

Chiefshrink
06-09-2009, 11:46 PM
Czars were created under FDR and sporatically used since. But not like this administration.

Hell no they are not Constitutional but because they are appointed by the Prez and answer to no one but him the concept of Czars circumvent the Constitution taking advantage of the "gray area".

patteeu
06-10-2009, 06:46 AM
Czars were created under FDR and sporatically used since. But not like this administration.

Hell no they are not Constitutional but because they are appointed by the Prez and answer to no one but him the concept of Czars circumvent the Constitution taking advantage of the "gray area".

The President appoints/hires lots of people who answer to no one but him (or one of his subordinates). The WH chef for instance. This is constitutional.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 07:29 AM
So Kitchen Bitch is now Salad Czar?

stevieray
06-10-2009, 08:54 AM
Nixon started the term czar...

FDR called them...Dictators.

Amnorix
06-10-2009, 09:02 AM
What about Article 1, Section 9, para 9 of the US Constitution:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"

Is not the title of Czar a "title of Nobility"? I know its a petty point but isn't it?

Yes, though I don't think the individuals formally have such title so it's moot point.

"Tsar" or "Czar" are both derivations of the Roman title Caesar, as is the old German "Kaiser". The Roman title itself, derived from the family name of Julius Caesar of course, wasn't even technically used as "king", but rather was generally the title of the either an official heir to the throne (more like prince) or the lesser rulers during the period of the tetrarchy.

The Emperor actually used the title Imperator during actual Roman times.

But I digress...

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 10:34 AM
It's funny how you ask a simple question around here and get slammed by the "orange"'s of the world. I just asked if it you thought it was constitutional and yes, I did read the articles you fuggin' tard. Thanks for playing...

orange
06-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble but you'e got too many of them around your lips.

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble but you'e got too many of them around your lips.yep, confirmed my point about you. You are a cartoon with nothing to add if someone asks a legit question. A donkey fan, I should have known better.

orange
06-10-2009, 11:12 AM
Legit question? "Title of nobility?"

I'm still waiting for one. Everyone else is making jokes about it and you're still obsessing (or maybe "abcessing" would fit better).

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 11:18 AM
Legit question? "Title of nobility?"

I'm still waiting for one. Everyone else is making jokes about it and you're still obsessing.That was an aside. The question was "Are these czar's constitutional?" You just look for any spot in any post to hammer someone and avoid answering a question.

I'll try again:
Do you think it is constitutional for a President appointee in this type of post with power to control money or regulations to have no obligation to be questioned in Congress? No oversight at all?

Amnorix
06-10-2009, 11:23 AM
That was an aside. The question was "Are these czar's constitutional?" You just look for any spot in any post to hammer someone and avoid answering a question.

I'll try again:
Do you think it is constitutional for a President appointee in this type of post with power to control money or regulations to have no obligation to be questioned in Congress? No oversight at all?

My understanding is that the various "czars" don't have final say on anything at all. To the degree their efforts intersect with the various cabinet departments, then no doubt their recommendations are given great weight, but the buck stops with the cabinet official.

If the cabinet official largely abdicates his responsibility to a czar, then he can and probably should be hauled before Congress on it.

My understanding, however, is that the Czars try to coordinate matters BETWEEN agencies with respect to the subject matter that they supervise. They don't run the agencies.

And if that's correct, then it's perfectly Constitutional.

orange
06-10-2009, 11:24 AM
Law (congress) creates some new authority (TARP for example); new department is created to dole out the money and rules; boss (president) appoints someone to direct the department; media calls that someone "czar" because that's what the media does and there's nothing the media likes more than itself.

Rinse and repeat and soon you've got your czardine can (credit to Banyon).

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 11:26 AM
Law (congress) creates some new authority; new department is created to dole out the money and rules; boss (president) appoints someone to direct the department; media calls that someone "czar" because that's what the media does and there's nothing the media likes more than itself.

Rinse and repeat and soon you've got your czardine can (credit to Banyon).So, you are ok with these (media created czars) "Master's with no oversight?

orange
06-10-2009, 11:26 AM
So, you are ok with these (media created czars) "Master's with no oversight?

They have oversight. They can be fired. The public/industry/whatnot can bring the heat if the czar is screwing up.

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 11:28 AM
My understanding is that the various "czars" don't have final say on anything at all. To the degree their efforts intersect with the various cabinet departments, then no doubt their recommendations are given great weight, but the buck stops with the cabinet official.

If the cabinet official largely abdicates his responsibility to a czar, then he can and probably should be hauled before Congress on it.

My understanding, however, is that the Czars try to coordinate matters BETWEEN agencies with respect to the subject matter that they supervise. They don't run the agencies.

And if that's correct, then it's perfectly Constitutional.
So, "IF" the quote I provided in post #10 is correct, then there is a problem?

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 11:31 AM
They have oversight. They can be fired. The public/industry/whatnot can bring the heat if the czar is screwing up.If by oversight you mean ONE person - Obama then you are correct. However, since the Auto czar was created the Congress and the media have been clamoring to ask him questions and he ignores all requests. I think that no amount of heat is going to get that guy in front of Congress and the Prez will never allow it to happen. I would say that the czars have little to no oversight by our elected officials except BO.

KcFanInGA
06-10-2009, 10:04 PM
I agree KC Dan, seems like oversight is MIA especially for the "car czar".

KILLER_CLOWN
06-10-2009, 10:09 PM
New GM chairman: ‘I don’t know anything about cars’

John Byrne
Raw Story
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The new chairman of General Motors is already under fire.

Edward Whitacre, a former AT&T hotshot whose long corporate career has been touted as an example of his big-business prowess, delivered a rather startling comment to a Bloomberg reporter on Tuesday — saying he knows nothing about the auto industry.

“I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre said. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.”

He added that he thinks running the company — which recently became effectively a property of the US government — is a “public service.”


Credited for reviving the once troubled telecom AT&T, Whitacre brings a long tenure in corporate management to the struggling Detroit-based auto firm.

Bloomberg note: “Whitacre’s selection bucks more than a half-century of tradition at GM, where the only non-executives to lead the board since 1937 were interim Chairman Kent Kresa and John Smale, who held the job from 1992 through 1995. Whitacre will take the post when Detroit-based GM exits Chapter 11, perhaps by Aug. 31.”

“A bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering and record in shaping a “monolithic” AT&T into a diversified enterprise make Whitacre “a good choice,” said Jim Hall, principal of 2953 Analytics auto-consulting firm in Birmingham, Michigan,” the wire service adds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ._YJhEj_Jo

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/10/new-gm-chairman-i-dont-know-anything-about-cars/

whoman69
06-11-2009, 11:35 AM
Yes because obviously Obama invented the czar positions in the executive branch. Oh, I'm sorry, that was Ronald Reagan, my bad. Now its just an overused metaphor for someone within a cabinet department that is given specific duties over a particular issue.

KC Dan
06-11-2009, 11:38 AM
Yes because obviously Obama invented the czar positions in the executive branch. Oh, I'm sorry, that was Ronald Reagan, my bad. Now its just an overused metaphor for someone within a cabinet department that is given specific duties over a particular issue.My problem with them - no accountibility outside the Oval office. Actually, creation started with FDR - Dictators, then Nixon, Reagan - Czar, ect...