Discussion in 'Politics' started by xsited1, Sep 18, 2009.
At least this guy thinks so:
So pick your President: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan.
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.
Byrd is irrelevent. End of discussion.
What would be so wrong about the prez just sticking to their Article 2 enumerated powers, and dispensing with all the "special advisers" and Executive Orders?
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.