Posted on 04/11/2011 9:06:50 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars Unaccountable White House aides are a product of a broken cabinet-nomination process. This is not the form of government the Founders intended. By GEORGE P. SHULTZ
A pattern of governance has emerged in Washington that departs substantially from that envisaged in our Constitution. Under our basic concept of governance: (1) a president and vice president are elected; and (2) the departments of government are staffed by constitutional officers including secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and others who are nominated by the president and confirmed for service by the consent of the Senate. They are publicly accountable and may be called to testify under oath about their activities.
Over time, this form of governance has changed. Presidents sometimes assume that the bureaucracy will try to capture a secretary and his or her immediate staff so that they will develop a departmental, rather than a White House, point of view. So presidents will name someone in the White House to oversee the department and keep a tight rein on its activities.
In national security and foreign policy, the National Security Council (NSC) was established after World War II by the National Security Act of 1947. As late as 1961, under President Dwight Eisenhower, the NSC was supported by a small staff headed by an executive secretary with a "passion for anonymity" and limited to a coordinating role. In subsequent administrations, that passion disappeared and staff members took on operational duties that formerly were the responsibility of constitutionally confirmed cabinet officials. This aggrandizement of the staff function then spread into fields far beyond national security.
More recently, the situation has been worsened by the difficulty of getting presidential nominees to cabinet and subcabinet positions approved and in place
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Summary table - Number of czars per administration
Or the IRS, DEA, ATF, EPA, NSA, NEA or any other commie front group.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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.
What does it mean when it says the congress may ‘vest’ the appointment..? Thanks
grant the authority to make
I was hoping in this case, 'vest' meant UNDUE the appointments by the president of those who are not required to sit before the senate and be confirmed. Ie-I know cabinent positions must be vetted, ambassadors, etc, but these czars and crap.....who are not mentioned in the Constitution should have NO POWER to RULE. And I was hoping the word vest also carried the meaning of trash, disband, throw-out, whatever.
If the czars fall under advisors to the president category, or WH staff basically, then they should have NO POWER TO DO ANYTHING REGARDING RULE MAKING.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.