Friday, October 30, 2009

Are the Obama Czars Constitutional?

Maybe this article should be titled "President Then/President Now".

Clearly the founding fathers were concerned about any one branch of the US aquiring too much power.

In 1965 in Alexandria Virginia, Miss Osborne taught our fifth grade class about the balance of powers in the US Constitution.

Not sure about civics class in Hawaii; but if Barack Obama missed discussion of the Constitution there, hopefully he was exposed later at Harvard Law School.

Here's what Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution says:

. . . 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.
In other words -- powerful individuals, such as czars, are supposed to be approved by the Senate.

But are they?

They are not.

Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called "Pay Czar", recently ordered pay cuts for executives at some of the firms that were bailed out last year.

Where did he get that power?

A lot of articles and authors might try to discern President Obama's motives for exceeding his Constitutional Authority. I submit that his motives are secondary.

It shouldn't matter whether a president is Ronald Reagan bringing freedom and democracy to eastern bloc nations or Barack Obama trying to establish a communist dictatorship in the United States -- the same Constitutional rules apply.


  1. dude you are completely ridiculous. czar is not a term of art, its a regular job in the exec branch with multi-department crossover. that’s it. are you high or something?

  2. These "czars" are simply individuals who have the responsibility of coordinating policy over various departments. Many presidents have had such individuals. They are not unconstitutional, they are members of the executive branch staff, and therefore not subject to Senatorial confirmation. They serve at the pleasure of the president, just as all his advisors do. Supposedly they coordinate policy that is them implemented through the Constitiutional Secretariat.

  3. The problem is that they are not just advisors, they hold office and set policies that sidestep the committees that OUR VOICE, CONGRESS is supposed to "regulate"...

    Balance of power is important. We relinquish it to the Executive Branch to our demise, no matter WHO is in office.

    PS~ I said the same thing when Bush was in office and requested (and GOT) "authority to delcare the 'war on terror'" and move into Iraq.
    Congress ABDICATED their role in holding the President in check. And they did it to CYA, absolving themselves of the decision.

    High time for the citizenry to demand that our elected officials to ADHERE to the Constitution.