Republicans introduce bill to eliminate presidential 'czars'

I don't believe this is just a bill about Obama and his use of Czars.
I think the article wants you to be lead in that direction of thinking.

But, then again, this is the Republicans and it is Obama we're talking about and his use of Czars.

Anyway, I'm not now and never have been a Obama Supporter,, I never will be an Obama Supporter, Now you know where I stand,,, Here's the article for you to read and digest on your own.

thehill.com...

A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various "czars" in the Obama administration.
The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

Any way, I think it's a good idea, I never have liked the idea of not vetting or voting for people running around the W. H. and giving their advice to the P O T U S on issues most if not all of them know nothing about.

MODS: I did a search, nothing found. If in wrong thread area, please feel free to move or delete.

U.S. Constitution: pertaining to the executive:
Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 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 pertinent clause being; " and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:"

The term czar is not an official title. Most of the positions that are nicknamed Czar, are in fact lawful appointments; being advisory or departmental positions. There are some that may be questionable in that they aren't Senate approved as proscribed in the Constitution.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Smack


That is True, You're so very correct in bringing this to our attention.
BUT!
We don't have to like it,,, I would like to see that changed to assure all of the advisers are, Vetted by us the People.
If I was voted in as The POTUS, there is no way in HE(( I'd make some of my friends my closest advisers,,, Their Crazy and they Drink To Much,,, of-course we're retired and all we do is drink and fish,,, But that's not the point,,,
Their Crazy and we'd only really be thinking of ourselves most of the time.

reply to post by guohua


The dems bitched about Bush and his czars as well. Personally I have to agree with Congress on this one. Czars should not be allowed. These people are answerable to no one but the President, and some of the areas they deal with clearly fall under congressional oversight.

To me this is a concentration of power taken by the Executive and ignoring the checks and balance system, namely Congress and their required duty to advise and consent on Presidential appointments.

I say get rid of all czars which create more redtape, and hold congress accountible for oversight.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra, You are absolutely correct, You know, Bush and Obama was not the only Presidents to have Czars.

I agree with you, they are to close to the President and they don't need to know all of our Business, The Common, Everyday American doesn't know all that goes on,,, Why should they,,, or why should some friend of the President get to put their two cents in when we can't?

reply to post by guohua


We the people choose those to represent us in Government, to speak and act on our behalf. I think Americans fail right after this, because once the election is over, we seem to go back to the oh well attitude, Government will deal with it.

The Government continues to grow and become more and more complex, so I understand the thought process behind a Czar, supposedly a point person who can coordinate different areas of the Federal Government, who without someone speaking with the authority of the President, would do their best to ignore any commands while trying to give commands of their own.

Where it fails is the removal of Congress from that setup, in addition to making these positions permanent instead of activating them during an incident that has multiple levels of government trying to work together.

Congress can find the time to oversee stuff, and this is evident if we look at the number of members of Congress who sit on committees. We dont need 35 members of the house to sit on a committee that deals with wheat imports.

The one thing our Government is hands down bar none the best at, is taking a simple problem and turning it into something so catastrophic we only read about in the bible or see it on sci fi movies.

We need to return to common sense.

They must desire to bring in their own paid advisors.

Politics is a # trade,it produces nothing of substance.

Good ol' Boys.

reply to post by guohua


This is a joke. "Czars" don't have any legal power.

Like CEO's who choose their own staff, Presidents choose their own committee heads - and they all choose people who can do the job, that they have a good relationship with and believe they can trust.

Makes sense to dismantle the WHOLE corporate structure of government - but NOT just sabotage one administration, then bring it back for the next.