Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: Obama Czars Are Unconstitutional
newsmax.com ^ | September 25, 2009 | staff

Posted on 09/26/2009 8:25:59 AM PDT by kellynla

With 28 remaining czars in the Obama administration after the departure of Van Jones, there has been a new call to bring transparency to shed light on the secretive nature of this group of individuals that operate outside the watch of government.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) takes that sentiment a step further.

In an interview with Dan Mangru of Newsmax TV, Paul said he believes that the czars are unconstitutional.

“They are not authorized (by the constitution), and not approved by the Senate, but Obama’s not the only guilty party.”

Watch the Exclusive Interview with Newsmax TV's Dan Mangru — Click Here Now!

Paul asserted that government operating in secrecy is nothing new and pointed to the existence of czars since the 1970’s

“The whole principle of uncontrolled government and government working in secrecy, that’s nothing new, but thank goodness it’s becoming more apparent.”

Asked if he would favor passing legislation that would bring Obama’s czars under Senate authority, Paul said he would favor such legislation and would also favor denying funding to Obama’s czars.

(Excerpt) Read more at moneynews.newsmax.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 111th; bho44; bhoczars; bhofascism; bhotyranny; czars; gaystatistkeywords; lunatic; nutjob; obama; psycho; ronpaul; youknowhesnuts

1 posted on 09/26/2009 8:25:59 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Yep. Never liked the czars anyway.

Its one thing to put someone in place for a few months oversight in the event of an emergency. Its another to put someone in place without oversight permanently.


2 posted on 09/26/2009 8:28:09 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: kellynla

“Paul asserted that government operating in secrecy is nothing new and pointed to the existence of czars since the 1970’s “

Uh huh.....Mr. Paul, who previously had 34 Czars??

Huh?

Most or all of them communist?

Thank you.


4 posted on 09/26/2009 8:30:01 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: kellynla
Defund the Czars! They should not have been funded in the first place.
6 posted on 09/26/2009 8:33:16 AM PDT by DHSMostWanted (MSNBC and CNN are not news channels, they are Propaganda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Absolutely Unconstitutional!

Bypassing the confirmation process required by the legislative branch is the taking illegal and unauthorized power by the Executive Branch.

Anyone who has anything to do with directing budget items, which are the people’s money, have to be qualified by congress through the hearing process. If they are purely in an advisory capacity, with no authority to administer or direct policy or money, they become the personal responsibility of the White Hose. But they can’t administer policy.


7 posted on 09/26/2009 8:39:28 AM PDT by o_zarkman44 (Obama is the ultimate LIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

8 posted on 09/26/2009 8:45:45 AM PDT by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; bamahead; rabscuttle385

There goes that “crazy old man” making sense again....


9 posted on 09/26/2009 8:46:22 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I maintain the czars are Obama’s shadow government waiting.


10 posted on 09/26/2009 9:04:35 AM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Interestingly, if we called them ‘emissaries’ rather than ‘czars’ then they would probably not be getting any attention at all.


11 posted on 09/26/2009 9:10:32 AM PDT by The Duke ("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democrat Party?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

It’s like the old joke about prostitutes but it is too serious to be funny:

“We already know what you are. We’re just talking about price now.”

In this case, we already know that most politicians are unscrupulous whores. We’re just talking about a matter of degree.

Politicians of both parties are always only too willing to break the law and ignore the Constitution for a short term advantage benefiting them and their party.

And once again they hold true to form.

That’s exactly what the democrats have done in voting against even minor oversight for Obama’s Czars, even though they are trading away even more of their constitutional authority and responsibility to support Obama.

But if the tables were reversed, the republicans would do the same thing.

And Obama is doing the same thing his predecessors have done. He is walking down an unconstitutional path; one that republicans helped carve out.

The big difference here is that he is taking his power grab it to new heights (or lows) no one else thought was possible, and he is using his power and authority to further destroy Constitutional protections.

It turns out that our vaunted concepts of separation of powers and constitutional protections have been illusionary, held up by honor alone and ready to fall when a big enough scoundrel stomps on them.

Obama is that scoundrel and there isn’t even a squeal from the other two branches.

The Founders knew a scoundrel like Obama could come along.
They knew that greedy arrogant toadies could control the legislature, as they now do. They knew that weak, resentful, narrow minded people could sit on the Supreme Court as they have for years.

This is what concerned Thomas Jefferson and others. And this is why there is a second ammendment and other constitutional protections, thankfully not yet completely eroded. Will the Bill of Rights work to preserve the Republic as intended? That remains to be seen.


12 posted on 09/26/2009 9:47:05 AM PDT by Iron Munro (You can't kill the beast while sucking at its teat - Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Thanks for the thread..
Bookmarked.


13 posted on 09/26/2009 9:49:23 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

If it is unconstitutional, why can’t Paul sue the White House?


14 posted on 09/26/2009 9:57:27 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

Need top constitutional attys on this one, and go ahead and start the lawsuits. This should have been done already. I think Glen Beck brought this czar thingy to light...others were asleep.


15 posted on 09/26/2009 10:06:23 AM PDT by Achilles Heel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Achilles Heel

The Republican Party does not have access to top constitutional lawyers?


16 posted on 09/26/2009 10:23:30 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Shadow Government? Only accountable to NObama !!!


17 posted on 09/26/2009 10:31:01 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DHSMostWanted

Who funded them in the first place?

What vote was taken in Congress?

What department pays them?

What department pays their staffs?

Who hired their staffs?

What authority do they all have? To do what?

There is alot fundamentally wrong with this whole picture.


18 posted on 09/26/2009 10:32:46 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
Shadow Government? Only accountable to NObama !!!

Even Roosevelt had his Czars. They were called "Dollar a Year Men" but were in fact a shadow government during the war.

19 posted on 09/26/2009 10:49:12 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

It would be interesting to watch the Liberal reaction to the next Republican President who decides to do the same exact thing except they would be titled Supreme Senators. I’m sure the libs would go along with it just like they are with the Obama Czars.


20 posted on 09/26/2009 12:45:12 PM PDT by eaglestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
21 posted on 09/28/2009 7:57:19 AM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson