Another Idiot Czar That Has To Go - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #31 09-10-2009, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

If that's your objection, you should write your represenatives in Congress and tell them to pass a new law or amend the Constitution. As things stand now, your objections have no foundations in the law.I agree that Obama's conduct should not be measured against Bush, but that does not mean that Bush has nothing to do with this discussion. So far, you have offered no legal reason for your position, so I was searching for some other reason. Partisan politics seemed like a prime suspect.

incorrect. I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat, not even a Libertarian. I vote for whomever the best candidate seems to be to me. I do not listen to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al. I know Reagan started the "czar" thing and I was as disgusted with the issue then as now, except that it has proliferated even more. If they are doing what cabinet officers are doing, make them cabinet officers. If they can do what they do w/o a cabinet, eliminate that cabinet position. My problem with the current crop of czars is that a lot of them would not pass congressional or FBI muster and therefore, IMHO, have no place in the executive branch affecting issues.

Txjake · #32 09-10-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Obama's speech pretty much said "Ask not what your country can do for you ......" How radical. How unAmerican. No wonder the righties were so incensed.

I was amazed at the blatant racism of it all here in Houston. The white suburban school districts censored our black president from telling kids to work harder in school, while the inner city schools did not. Ignorance and prejudice, on display in a way I have not seen since the 1960's. There is an ugly, ugly racist undercurrent to a lot of this, especially the Birther crap. Why am I not surprised they went after another black guy in Obama's government with a bunch of trumped up baloney ? Nice lynch job there, Beckie. Careful of the cup of hate you are pouring their righties, you just might drown in it.

You spew hate yourself, with all your not so subtle invectives. The people of the US went after Van Jones not because of his color, but because of his positions on issues and the fact that he claimed to be a communist. By playing the race card as you do, you only show the weakness of your position.......

Txjake · #33 09-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

In this country, the executive branch is not subordinate to the legislative branch.
Second, there is no prohibition in the Constitution of radical positions.

The previous administration, having the same operational rules as the current administration, is an excellent example. If Bush can hire people, then Obama can hire people. Are you suggesting Bush should not have been allowed to hire people? Where were your objections, then?

I have never been for the czar positions....ever..

MTUpower · #34 09-10-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I can think of no reason, except that there is no law permitting such a vetting process. You think that might have something to do with it?

Apparently this czar thing is the next non-issue that will need to be exposed as empty, just like death panels and school children indoctrination.

We The People have put into place Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which specifically states that “he [the president] 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 …”

This means that anyone appointed by the President must be submitted to the Senate for a thorough vetting. This is a CHECK against the Executive BRANCH that allows the Senate to check for any improprieties in the nominees’ career and life. This was established by the Framers of the Constitution to ensure that the Executive Branch would not overreach in its authority.

Is this the law you were thinking, I mean not thinking, of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Did you have similar objections to Bush's czars?

Yes, I did. I did not like it then nor do I like it now. It's the pres's way of avoiding the people and the laws/restraints we have put on the office. Every pres wants more power than the last and this is a concrete example of how they sidestep our constitution.

cmac2012 · #35 09-10-2009, 01:38 PM

Strikes me as overly cumbersome to have every person who works in an administration be confirmed in congressional hearings. Were Scooter Libby or David Addington subject to such scrutiny? Sufficient that they answer to people who were pulicly vetted and those people will be held to account for any misdeeds.

Honus · #36 09-10-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

No doubt racism is part of the support for Obama? How could it be otherwise? That's the society we inhabit.

I agree.

Honus · #37 09-10-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

We The People have put into place Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which specifically states that “he [the president] 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 …”

This means that anyone appointed by the President must be submitted to the Senate for a thorough vetting. This is a CHECK against the Executive BRANCH that allows the Senate to check for any improprieties in the nominees’ career and life. This was established by the Framers of the Constitution to ensure that the Executive Branch would not overreach in its authority.

Is this the law you were thinking, I mean not thinking, of?

I stand to be corrected by someone who has done the research, but I'll bet those terms - "...other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme court, and all other Officers of the United States..." - don't mean what you say they mean. My only reason for saying so is that it seems well-accepted that only certain members within any administration are required to go before the Senate. Or, maybe there is some other part of the Constitution that permits the President to appoint people to certain positions without going to the Senate. If so, those appointments would come under the last part of that clause - "...whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

Interesting question.

Quote:

Yes, I did. I did not like it then nor do I like it now. It's the pres's way of avoiding the people and the laws/restraints we have put on the office. Every pres wants more power than the last and this is a concrete example of how they sidestep our constitution.

I don't follow that argument. How does the use of the word "czar" confer any additional powers on the appointee? And who came up with that term - "czar"? I am not sure that Obama even uses the term. Are you saying that Obama could avoid the supposed legal infirmity in these appointments simply by calling them something other than "czar"?

JollyRoger · #38 09-11-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

You spew hate yourself, with all your not so subtle invectives. The people of the US went after Van Jones not because of his color, but because of his positions on issues and the fact that he claimed to be a communist. By playing the race card as you do, you only show the weakness of your position.......

You claim not to listen to Beck, yet one of his top issues seem to be appearing under your name. You also are repeating word for word the inaccuracies he spews. Van Jones has stated he disavowed his communist views years ago, and like many, it was all a product of his youth at the time. Van Jones was thrown under the bus simply because of an old video showing him calling the Rrs a bad name at a time Obama does not need any distractions, so they fired him. Unfortunately for Beck, that now means Van Jones can devote full time to his campaign to contact Beck's advertisers and letting them know they will not be selling a lot of their products to Democrats and black people.

tankdriver · #39 09-11-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

I have never been for the czar positions....ever..

I don't recall reading any objections regarding the last group's czars. Only this one's.

Czars are mid level functionaries of the executive branch, and I reiterate that Congress has no business vetting hires by the executive branch.

mgburg · #40 09-12-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

You mean the previous CONGRESS. After all, who really writes the budget? AFAIK, the Prez submits a wish list and Congress does with it as it pleases. Most of the Congress is still intact so they are having to deal with their mess.

Hey! Aklim!

You and I must be on "ignore" with some of these folks...

I've said it and you've said it...Congress passes the money out...

No cash? No sales!

Some folks still don't get it...

Where are ALL the special prosecutors for the banking failures?

There aren't any and there won't be...'cause over half the current members of Congress are up to their own eyeballs with guilt on the way the ecomony took a dump...and they helped it along...and in the process, they made some cash on the side...

Some day...the folks will pay attention...but I'm not holding my breathe...how 'bout you?

Billybob · #41 09-12-2009, 01:22 PM

Jolly Roger:
"Van Jones was thrown under the bus simply because of an old video showing him calling the Rrs a bad name at a time Obama does not need any distractions, so they fired him."

Not according to the spokesperson for the Dear Leader! Not according to Mr. Jones!

"Van Jones has stated he disavowed his communist views years ago, and like many, it was all a product of his youth at the time."

Which communist views did he disavow and when? How youthful was Van Jones from September 1994-December 2002, seven years ago?

Here are a published account of some of the Van Jones "communist views" along with the racist, sexist, classist, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and other views he holds.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10717234/Reclaiming-Revolution-history-summation-and-lessons-from-the-work-of-STORM

aklim · #42 09-12-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

Where are ALL the special prosecutors for the banking failures?

Some day...the folks will pay attention...but I'm not holding my breathe...how 'bout you?

Too bad we don't have the Chinese Special Prosecutors.

I think it is like our love for conspiracy theories. Blame a small cabal of people and when they are gone, problems are gone. The other way to fix it is to watch closely who we send to congress and what they do when they are in congress. That takes too much effort. But the political parties made it simple. If you like liberal policies, vote for the Dems. If you like conservative policies, vote for the Reps. Results are the same either way.