House Republicans Introduce Bill to Eliminate Obama’s 39 Czars

[Care4all]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

that's simply NOT TRUE.

If it were true then President bush's 30 some czars and all presidents in the past century's czars, were unconstitutional as well....

As long as the adviser does not have any powers, they do NOT need to be approved by the Senate.

some of the czars have been approved by the Senate that is in both President Bush's list of czars and in President Obama's list of czars, but those are czars that have pwer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's call them what they are CZARS.

Uh, no. They're not Eastern-European monarchy. They're advisors to the Office of the President, with no legal authority.

30 YEARS OF CALLING THEM CZARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY AREN"T? Sorry that just doesn't work for me, revisionist history is 3rd door on the left

 

[Claudette]

By all means lets get rid of the czars..

lets call them "Special advisors to the President"

Not sure exactly where the czars are an issue. Call them czars call them advisors call them assistants call them liaisons. They are there to help the President govern as he can not be everywhere all the time.
As for their salaries.....are we going to cut back on spending by having less advisors to the president?
If anything, get rid of those multiple assistants to the congresspeople and instread have them work 5 days a week like the rest of us.

These Czar jobs just look like cushy payback to some for favors rendered.

Pretty expensive for the taxpayer though. All presidents seem to have had them.

I agree on all the assistants to the Clowns. Get rid of a few and have work for real.

 

[kaz]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

that's simply NOT TRUE.

If it were true then President bush's 30 some czars and all presidents in the past century's czars, were unconstitutional as well....

As long as the adviser does not have any powers, they do NOT need to be approved by the Senate.

some of the czars have been approved by the Senate that is in both President Bush's list of czars and in President Obama's list of czars, but those are czars that have pwer.

Well, you're right in the part that when Bush did it, it was just as unconstitutional. According to Bush and Obama they do have power. The Constitution is completely clear on that, they must get Senate confirmation. Do you know what the term "czar" means? Just the name says the President is putting them there to make decisions. How does it even make sense that the President names a czar of something who so clearly can't do anything they don't need confirmation?

BTW, what czars got Senate confirmation?

 

[Sheldon]

Let's call them what they are CZARS.

Uh, no. They're not Eastern-European monarchy. They're advisors to the Office of the President, with no legal authority.

30 YEARS OF CALLING THEM CZARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY AREN"T? Sorry that just doesn't work for me, revisionist history is 3rd door on the left

Revisionist history.

Look up the original meaning of the word, then get back to me.

It's a name the media manufactured and has run with. A "czar" in the executive branch is an advisor. You and your wingnut ilk want to call Obama's advisors czars because it conjures up images of Soviet Russia, and that's a convenient parallel for pushing the Marxist tyrant meme.

 

[jgarden]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

Just when did the Republicans discover that their 47 appointments, from January 2001 to January 2009, to the 32 positions designated "czar" were unconstitutional?

Footnote: 23 of those 47 appointees by the Bush Administration were never confirmed by the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

 

[Jarhead]

Cutting the czars is not only not a starting point and not only just stupid. It is childish games by the GOP in my eyes.
But again, the TP reps want to cut programs...they may find minimizing them is the answer; they may find there is nothing that can be done at all; they may find eliminating them completely is the answer....and they may find valid ways to do it....and they may not.
There is nothing wrong with having an objective. I dont see it as foolish. I see it as goal oriented.

I dont blame you for not wanting to clean. Responding to me is so much more fun.

agreed...
ok you are repeating what i just said.
again that is subjective.When i pee my goal is to not miss the bowl. If my goal was to hit people as i drive, that would not be a good goal.
The tea party is not speaking in these terms. The tea party is and has been all or nothing. They will find out that is not the case.

Which is why the tea party voters got had.

The tea party did not get had. They voted in candidates that are likely to push as much of their agenda as possible.
I do not see the Obama supporters as being had, but many of them beleived he was going to change the way things are done in Washinton.

And I agreed with you. I was not repeating what you said. I elaborated on it.

Go back to cleaning. You have company coming.

 

[DiveCon]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

then you will be pleased to know that most of Obama's "czars" are actually cabinet positions that WERE confirmed by the senate

 

[Meister]

I sure hope this republican Congress wakes up and gets their ducks in a row with the priorities of this nation....if not it will be business as usual on Capital Hill

 

[DiveCon]

ok, one more time for the terminally stupid

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DiveCon]

I sure hope this republican Congress wakes up and gets their ducks in a row with the priorities of this nation....if not it will be business as usual on Capital Hill

yup
what a massive waste of time, and i hope to God this nonsense never makes it out of committee

 

[kaz]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

Just when did the Republicans discover that their 47 appointments from January 2001 to January 2009, to the 32 positions designated "czar" was unconstitutional?

Footnote: 23 of those 47 appointees by the Bush Administration were never confirmed by the Senate.

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When Bush did it, it was equally Unconstitutional and I opposed it just as strongly. Bush sucked, BTW, I've no interest in defending him and I don't see the relevance. Bush acting illegally doesn't make it legal for Obama to do it. I thought Obama was going to clean things up? How does it make sense then for you to argue that Bush did it, so it's OK for Obama?

 

[kaz]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

then you will be pleased to know that most of Obama's "czars" are actually cabinet positions that WERE confirmed by the senate

I would be pleased if that were true. They ALL need to be confirmed, not some of them.

 

[DiveCon]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

then you will be pleased to know that most of Obama's "czars" are actually cabinet positions that WERE confirmed by the senate

I would be pleased if that were true. They ALL need to be confirmed, not some of them.

no, the fact is they dont
some are just in an advisory position with nothing more
they do not have to be confirmed
those that are actually cabinet level positions with cabinet level authority, do

 

[Care4all]

The czars are just flagrantly unconstitutional clearly ignoring the advice and counsel of the Senate requirement

that's simply NOT TRUE.

If it were true then President bush's 30 some czars and all presidents in the past century's czars, were unconstitutional as well....

As long as the adviser does not have any powers, they do NOT need to be approved by the Senate.

some of the czars have been approved by the Senate that is in both President Bush's list of czars and in President Obama's list of czars, but those are czars that have pwer.

Well, you're right in the part that when Bush did it, it was just as unconstitutional. According to Bush and Obama they do have power. The Constitution is completely clear on that, they must get Senate confirmation. Do you know what the term "czar" means? Just the name says the President is putting them there to make decisions. How does it even make sense that the President names a czar of something who so clearly can't do anything they don't need confirmation?

BTW, what czars got Senate confirmation?

this list is over a year old but is still an example, the ones on the list with an asterisk next to them, have been confirmed by the senate.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf

 

[Care4all]

these are advisers to the president....they are not unconstitutional...

however, i still believe the president needs to look at consolidating advisory positions where he can.

 

[DiveCon]

that's simply NOT TRUE.

If it were true then President bush's 30 some czars and all presidents in the past century's czars, were unconstitutional as well....

As long as the adviser does not have any powers, they do NOT need to be approved by the Senate.

some of the czars have been approved by the Senate that is in both President Bush's list of czars and in President Obama's list of czars, but those are czars that have pwer.

Well, you're right in the part that when Bush did it, it was just as unconstitutional. According to Bush and Obama they do have power. The Constitution is completely clear on that, they must get Senate confirmation. Do you know what the term "czar" means? Just the name says the President is putting them there to make decisions. How does it even make sense that the President names a czar of something who so clearly can't do anything they don't need confirmation?

BTW, what czars got Senate confirmation?

this list is over a year old but is still an example, the ones on the list with an asterisk next to them, have been confirmed by the senate.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf

this actually seems to be more up to day, and doesnt double count any like that one does

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sheldon]

ok, one more time for the terminally stupid

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That could also be helpful for the benignly stupid.

 

[DiveCon]

ok, one more time for the terminally stupid

list of u.s. Executive branch czars - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that could also be helpful for the benignly stupid. :d

YMMV
know what i mean?

 

[kaz]

then you will be pleased to know that most of Obama's "czars" are actually cabinet positions that WERE confirmed by the senate

I would be pleased if that were true. They ALL need to be confirmed, not some of them.

no, the fact is they dont
some are just in an advisory position with nothing more
they do not have to be confirmed
those that are actually cabinet level positions with cabinet level authority, do

You can play that silly liberal word game that somehow the president is appointing people without any power, which somehow is supposed to make sense. He appoints them and they have no power, zero, they can't do anything. And they are there because????

But do you know what George Bush, Obama and you have in common? None of you get to decide that. The Senate decides who does not need Senate confirmation. All the people in departments now, the Senate approved at below what level they do not need to be confirmed. Not the Executive branch.

You seriously want George Bush deciding who needs Senate confirmation? I don't. I don't want Obama deciding that either, it's not his call.