Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional
WIND560 ^ | 6-15-09 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 06/15/2009 12:28:16 PM PDT by SJackson

Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased.

Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.

Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional. But it never built to a critical mass to elicit a court fight. These czars were few and far between, and rarely did anything that seriously ruffled any feathers. But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime.

This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.

Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)

And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.

Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.

White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.

But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.

The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.

Fortunately, there is a remedy. Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court. Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have a court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist. Then everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes.

Let the lawsuits begin.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; agenda; bho44; bhoczars; bhofascism; bhotreason; bhotyranny; byrd; communism; corruption; cwii; cwiiping; czars; democrats; donttreadonme; economy; fascism; feinberg; fubo; lping; marxism; neomarxism; obama; socialism; thekenyan; tyranny; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: JavaJumpy

Geez, Orwellian... I don’t blame you.


41 posted on 06/15/2009 1:39:43 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama post 09/11. The U.S. is sorry, we are a Muslim nation, and we surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

Very, very well said. You have summed it up as perfectly as can be summed in as many words you used.. We are F#$cked unless there is massive revolt, from both sides of the isle.
This guy is doing more damage than the Germans, the North Vietnamese, the Muslims, the Japanese, the North Koreans, and just about any other enemy you can think of.. COMBINED!!!


42 posted on 06/15/2009 1:45:46 PM PDT by hot4plasma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Leave it to nObama to take something that Frmr. Pres. Bush created out of necessity and abuse it. If dimocarts were so itchy for impeachment then why aren’t they now?

Obama: An illegal president presiding illegally.


43 posted on 06/15/2009 1:46:58 PM PDT by Darkadonisas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I wonder who really wrote that? From what I’m hearing Byrd is in no shape to write letters to the President. Ever.


44 posted on 06/15/2009 2:08:48 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Sen. Byrd, what are you going to do about it? Nobody is doing anything about Obama, he's the elected President, don't you know.
45 posted on 06/15/2009 2:13:18 PM PDT by mia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner
Apparently Marxist Obama (IIRC a constitutional law prof) never actually had a firm grasp on this Constitution thingie (the one that he's pledged protect to defend, no less).

That is because law schools do not teach reverence for and compliance with the law; they teach manipulation of the law. Especially for a Marxist, constitutional law training only means "how I can get away with subverting the Constitution". Obama is fast approaching the point where he no longer bothers subverting the Constitution because he knows he can violate it outright and Americans won't have the guts to do anything about it.
46 posted on 06/15/2009 2:20:02 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I wrote both of my senators and urged them to stand up against BO and his power grab. I urged them to defend the Constitution like the swore they would do. Please write your Senators and Representatives and tell them to protect and defend our constitution. I wonder if he could be impeached for this?


47 posted on 06/15/2009 2:26:28 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mia

Byrd wrote the letter back in February.


48 posted on 06/15/2009 2:27:54 PM PDT by SJackson (G-d da*n America, Jeremiah Wright---Don't tell me words don't matter!, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

As if he gives 2 sh*ts about our Constitution. He wants to rule the world. He’s a complete power hungry little lost boy, and a lazy one at that.


49 posted on 06/15/2009 2:28:47 PM PDT by mojitojoe (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Don’t turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar’s in town, oh oh
You’re in his eye
And you’ll know why
The more you live
The faster you will die

Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

Hear the children
Don’t turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar’s in town, oh oh
He’s got the power
And you’re so weak
And your frustration will not let you speak

-Falco


50 posted on 06/15/2009 2:29:04 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner

Zero was no professor just a lecturer.


51 posted on 06/15/2009 2:36:21 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Impeach the czars!


52 posted on 06/15/2009 2:42:11 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Perhaps so, but at least in this case, the two coincide.


53 posted on 06/15/2009 2:48:29 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bamahead
Sr. Democrat says, eh?

Well let's ask an ex-con divorced black transgendered {doesn't matter which way} dwarf. One that owns a Hispanic canine who hops on one foot & juggles a basket of hot-dogs with the others all the while whining The Ode to Billy Joe 'bout this.
Shall we?

I mean, c'mon.
We want --AND DESERVE-- some credibility. LOL

54 posted on 06/15/2009 3:02:28 PM PDT by Landru (Arghh, Liberals are trapped in my colon like spackle or paste.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The Czarist Obamanov Dynasty


55 posted on 06/15/2009 3:49:20 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (It's the spending, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Wow. I am surprised to find myself agreeing with Byrd.


56 posted on 06/15/2009 3:51:03 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (No Representation without Taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
So it’s okay to be a little unconstitutional, but not a lot unconstitutional. Got it.

If something is unconstitutional, but nobody complains about it, its constitutionality or lack thereof is largely moot. When things get so bad that even Democrats start complaining, that's a sign that things might get held in check.

Personally, I would suggest that if Senator Bryd is really serious about his statements, he should request that the House draw up articles of impeachment. I would think that for a Democrat to do such a thing would draw some attention.

57 posted on 06/15/2009 3:51:53 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Wow. I am surprised to find myself agreeing with Byrd.

Me too, though I suspect it's more a function of wanting the power for the Senate. Which is where some of it belongs, certainly oversight.

58 posted on 06/15/2009 4:21:33 PM PDT by SJackson (G-d da*n America, Jeremiah Wright---Don't tell me words don't matter!, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Byrd also blasted Obama for the power grab. No one is listening.


59 posted on 06/15/2009 4:25:58 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

“How many CZARs have been appointed by our leader...”

Speak for yourself - he is not MY leader.


60 posted on 06/15/2009 4:35:35 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson