Posted on 07/18/2009 7:41:44 PM PDT by fiscon1
I first wrote about the potential dangers of President Obama's penchant for naming czars back in January. Then, President Obama's desire to name czars, envoys, and special advisers was much greater than the actual number. Now, the administration has over thirty czars. They include such dubious functions as green jobs, California water, and pay czars. Most of these czars don't even have functions that any fair reading of the Constitution would give the president. For instance, he has a full assembly line, pardon the pun, of czars just to deal with the auto industry. Of course, the president technically has no jurisdiction over the automobiles. He has a Commerce Secretary to deal with commerce, but to deal with cars he has a whole task force.
(Excerpt) Read more at theeprovocateur.blogspot.com ...
This guy has the instincts of an Idi Amin.
Yes. Anyone who doubts it should watch the movie “The Last King of Scotland.”
How are they paid? If not authorized by Congress?
good question, I don’t know. I know they have no staff. I don’t think that Immelt, for instance, gets paid at all.
I ain’t too worried about the czar, it’s the fetters that worry me.
Sooooo....just exactly HOW do We The People pay these czars....who authorizes their GS levels and payroll?
Thanks for info. Wonder if they have offices, expense accounts etc. Something to look into. Also same about previous 1st Drug Czar. Thanks again.
We need a Congressional Bill to audit all of the czars.
politburo [(pol-it-byoor-oh, poh-lit-byoor-oh)]A commonly used name for those who made the major governmental decisions in the former Soviet Union. A politburo, in general, is the chief committee of a communist party.
They are accountable to no one and serve at the "pleasure" of the "President". 32 and counting.
Oh, and since it is evident that Øbama has learned from the very "best" of historical figures, particularly tyrants, I imagine it won't be long before we hear his appointment of kapos as well.
Can we or someone sue to have them ruled unconstitutional? I’m not a lawyer, so I have not idea who could bring a challenge, but surely someone can.... and should.
Il Douche’.
Congress may have standing since any Executive position exercising policy level decisions must be nominated to the Senate for confirmation.
Oh, I forgot to mention I think Obama’s administration has classified these czars as “Presidential advisors” in order to slip them past confirmation requirements.
Advisors however do not exercise any executive power, thus if any of these czars directly exercise any executive powers their decisions and orders may be refused as unconstitutional, although in all likelihood you’ll find yourself fired long before this makes it into a court room.
I guess that means that if one of these czars issues an order anybody affected by that order may have standing to sue the administration over the constitutionality of the order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.