Czar Accountability Act

Thank God. This is a much needed bill. Obama's Czars are an end run around the Constitution

thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.3226:


Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 3226 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3226

To provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis), without the advice and consent of the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 15, 2009

Mr. KINGSTON (for himself, Mr. CARTER, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. LATTA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. LINDER, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mr. LAMBORN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

A BILL

To provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis), without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

(a) In General- Appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office--

(1) which is established by or at the direction of the President; and

(2) the head of which--

(A) is appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis) without the advice and consent of the Senate;

(B) is excepted from the competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-determining, the policy-making, or policy-advocating character; and

(C) performs or delegates functions which (but for the establishment of such task force, council, or similar office) would be performed or delegated by an individual in a position to which the President appoints an individual by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(b) Definition- For purposes of this section, the term `competitive service' has the meaning given such term by section 2102 of title 5, United States Code.

reply to post by VinceP1974


Ah...

Something we can agree upon

Let us hope they do not twist it into something else entirely.

I can see them adding a hidden clause onto it.

reply to post by VinceP1974


S&F

It's going to be fun watching the opponents tap-dance around this one.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by VinceP1974

 

S&F

It's going to be fun watching the opponents tap-dance around this one.

I don't think you will find any right minded folks liberal or not oppose this.
It provides a firm balance which is needed with government...

It seems a little of a strange idea to me. Many people in positions of power are technically unelected, we elect the leader/cabinet who then use advisers, civil servants, and so on.

It seems a very political move, just because some people happen to disagree with the policies that the current advisers are enacting. Really, the are just carrying out the President and other elected officials policies, if they don't, they'll be replaced.

The only kind of 'unelected officials' I really have a problem with, are those that don't even have to answer to the head of state, like the federal reserve people.

This doesn't restrict power. It legitimizes their positions. Like what does this bill NOT say, that they can do?

Originally posted by harpsounds
It seems a little of a strange idea to me. Many people in positions of power are technically unelected, we elect the leader/cabinet who then use advisers, civil servants, and so on.

It seems a very political move, just because some people happen to disagree with the policies that the current advisers are enacting. Really, the are just carrying out the President and other elected officials policies, if they don't, they'll be replaced.

The only kind of 'unelected officials' I really have a problem with, are those that don't even have to answer to the head of state, like the federal reserve people.

Well I have no idea if you're an American.. I hope you're not.

Article II
Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Hmmm upon re-reading that it seems like the President does not have the power to create high executive positions by his own power nor to fill them

Originally posted by Scopeless
This doesn't restrict power. It legitimizes their positions. Like what does this bill NOT say, that they can do?

After I re-read the Constitution (above) , I have to agree with you. this bill is rather weak. Typical.

the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Anyone have any legal knowledge on how this is currently being interpreted, and if it's currently deemed that Congress has vested that power to the President? I'm guessing they must have, as it's been going on for decades already, then again, they might just be ignoring what's inconvenient?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by harpsounds]

Originally posted by harpsounds

the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Anyone have any legal knowledge on how this is currently being interpreted, and if it's currently deemed that Congress has vested that power to the President?

What that part means is that the Congress could decree that the President doesn't need the Senate's consent to appoint the Manager of Bathroom Hygene for the Subdirecting Managing Assistant Under Supervisory Secretary of Energy.

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by harpsounds

the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Anyone have any legal knowledge on how this is currently being interpreted, and if it's currently deemed that Congress has vested that power to the President?

What that part means is that the Congress could decree that the President doesn't need the Senate's consent to appoint the Manager of Bathroom Hygene for the Subdirecting Managing Assistant Under Supervisory Secretary of Energy.

Do you have some supreme court judgments or similar evidence to support that? Not that I dispute you, I don't actually know myself what the facts are on this, I'd like to see some evidence though.

reply to post by harpsounds


Umm what?

I dont want a large group of people who more and more will be overseeing ever facet of American life, who dont have to be elected, answer ONLY to one person, that being the president....

Im not sure you understand the implications of circumventing tho whole system so that nothing has to be voted on or be put under scrutiny.

They have the power to do whatever the hell they want and theres jack anyone can do about, in turn, Obama hands down the orders as well, and HE will be able to do what he wants if he cant get his way through the senate.

You really need to step back and look at the implications of this I think...

Effectively put all the power of the nation in the hands of one man who NOW doesnt in the areas concerned where the czars are installed.....doesnt even have to answer to his own constituents.

Doesnt sound like democracy to me, sounds like a dictatorship

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

Doesnt sound like democracy to me, sounds like a dictatorship

Actually, it sounds to me a bit like a Republic. The idea of a Republic seems to be the indirect election of an elite who make all the decisions, with most power in the hands of a President, but with an elite who can apply the checks and balances (for example, a congress who can withhold funding for policies they disagree with). The election part is what distinguishes it from a dictatorship in my view.

If the USA was a democracy, then maybe this would be a bad idea, but the whole idea of electing an elite based on merit is to avoid the "mob rule" of democracy.

reply to post by harpsounds


Whereas this may be true in theory, in practice, our Founding Fathers ensured that this Republic would enjoy the benefits afforded both systems. A good description of such can be read HERE.

In a true Republic the powers are clearly separted by the Constitution adopted by the poeple affording each branch its due oversight and authority. "Czars" have absolutely no place in a true Republic form of government and does, in fact, attempt to circumvent the very powers vested in each individual branch.

Originally posted by harpsounds
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Doesnt sound like democracy to me, sounds like a dictatorship

Actually, it sounds to me a bit like a Republic. The idea of a Republic seems to be the indirect election of an elite who make all the decisions, with most power in the hands of a President, but with an elite who can apply the checks and balances (for example, a congress who can withhold funding for policies they disagree with). The election part is what distinguishes it from a dictatorship in my view.

If the USA was a democracy, then maybe this would be a bad idea, but the whole idea of electing an elite based on merit is to avoid the "mob rule" of democracy.

To add onto what you said:
A Republic , as John Adams defined it, is a Rule of Law, not a Rule of Majority.

For example. if you kill someone. an angry mob cannot , legally, take its revenge out on you.

Nor can a majority in a jury find you guilty for you to be guilty. but all of them must.

In the Constitution, Article IV Section III , it says

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In the end a lot of these terms have a bit of elasticity to them.