The Czar Chasm
Senate hearing lead by Feingold to look at the constitutionality of Czars.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Thats like asking MARX and LENIN to look at the Constitutionality of Communism…..
October 8th, 2009 at 9:55 am
“Czar Chasm”. Now, that’s a good one!
October 8th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Markie Marxist sez: “‘Czar’ is such a silly euphemism for our Marxist People’s Commissars, but a spoonful of sugar helps our Marxist medicine go down, doesn’t it? It’s hilarious really. Using an obsolete term from Czarist Russia that refers to the head of state, to describe our Marxist autocrats, especially after what we did to the Romanov’s – hilarious! It’s further proof that our Marxist/warrior/hero/journalistas define the debate these days. All your political terminology is belong to us, Comrade! Ha! Ha!”
October 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I really don’t understand the issue here. The Czars are just super-staffers. They have no constitutional or legal authority. Their authority and power to get things done is the Presidents. Therefore, whatever they do is the responsibility of the President. You can delegate authority but not responsibility. The type of person the President chooses to delegate authority to says a lot about the President. When any White House staffer calls up a department or agency, people listen and take action. The czars are simply people who have been publicly delegated authority to speak and direct in the name of the President in certain areas.
The only problem I have is when the White House tries to disavow a czar. Sorry, you can’t do that. The individual was given authority to speak in the name of the President so the action belongs to the President. The President can apologize for his underlings action, he can reverse the action and he can remove the individual but the action is the President’s since he conferred the authority upon the individual and the individual has no independent authority, unlike a Cabinet Secretary who has independent constitutional and legal authority to execute his duties.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The problem is that the ability of Congress to do oversight of “czars” is more limited than that of the various executive departments themselves. In part due to different rules for what Congress can compel from White House staff.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Spook45 beat me to it.
Funny how, when The Other Party has the car keys, our precious Constitution is being threatened. When the preferred gang color gets the power back, Ye Old Parchment becomes Ye Old Toilet Paper.
tweaker