White House 'Czars' Are Unconstitutional

xsited1

Agent P
Sep 15, 2008
17,745
5,779
198
Little Rock, AR
At least this guy thinks so:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama's appointment of White House "czars" to oversee federal policy. He wrote a letter to the president stating that such positions Byrd "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

Byrd: White House 'Czars' Are Unconstitutional | Drudge Retort

So pick your President: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan.

Discuss.
 
The first President to appoint a czar was FDR...he had 12 of them.

Sen. Robert Byrd is just reminiscing of his good ol' days in senate before the first czar was appointed.
 
Bush had 45 czars, Obama has 30.

I think it is a srtupid name to begin with. What's wrong with Head of Department X or some such.

Head Muckity Muck, Grand Poobah all make as much sense.:lol:
 
At least this guy thinks so:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama's appointment of White House "czars" to oversee federal policy. He wrote a letter to the president stating that such positions Byrd "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

Byrd: White House 'Czars' Are Unconstitutional | Drudge Retort

So pick your President: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan.

Discuss.

Byrd is irrelevent. End of discussion.
 
The czars report to the Executive Branch.
The president is free to hire anyone he needs to support his decisions as Chief Executive.

The President does not get to approve what Congressional Staffers get to support each Senator and the Senate does not get to approve who supports the President in the execution of his duties.
 
Bush had 45 czars, Obama has 30.

I think it is a srtupid name to begin with. What's wrong with Head of Department X or some such.

Head Muckity Muck, Grand Poobah all make as much sense.:lol:

According to people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, they are unconstitutional. As we all know, the president's cabinet is composed of heads of various executive offices. These offices are proposed by the president and approved by Congress. HOWEVER, the president can create new sub-cabinet-level offices more or less at will for these Czars. This is a symptom of the ongoing expansion of executive power. That's a problem.
 
The czars report to the Executive Branch.
The president is free to hire anyone he needs to support his decisions as Chief Executive.

The President does not get to approve what Congressional Staffers get to support each Senator and the Senate does not get to approve who supports the President in the execution of his duties.
Problem being that most of the "czars" operate in areas which are outside the Article 2 enumerated powers of the president.
 
The czars report to the Executive Branch.
The president is free to hire anyone he needs to support his decisions as Chief Executive.

The President does not get to approve what Congressional Staffers get to support each Senator and the Senate does not get to approve who supports the President in the execution of his duties.
Problem being that most of the "czars" operate in areas which are outside the Article 2 enumerated powers of the president.

And therein lies the problem. That's why they should be eliminated.
 

Forum List

Back
Top