Posted on 09/26/2009 8:25:59 AM PDT by kellynla
With 28 remaining czars in the Obama administration after the departure of Van Jones, there has been a new call to bring transparency to shed light on the secretive nature of this group of individuals that operate outside the watch of government.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) takes that sentiment a step further.
In an interview with Dan Mangru of Newsmax TV, Paul said he believes that the czars are unconstitutional.
“They are not authorized (by the constitution), and not approved by the Senate, but Obama’s not the only guilty party.”
Watch the Exclusive Interview with Newsmax TV's Dan Mangru — Click Here Now!
Paul asserted that government operating in secrecy is nothing new and pointed to the existence of czars since the 1970’s
“The whole principle of uncontrolled government and government working in secrecy, that’s nothing new, but thank goodness it’s becoming more apparent.”
Asked if he would favor passing legislation that would bring Obama’s czars under Senate authority, Paul said he would favor such legislation and would also favor denying funding to Obama’s czars.
(Excerpt) Read more at moneynews.newsmax.com ...
Yep. Never liked the czars anyway.
Its one thing to put someone in place for a few months oversight in the event of an emergency. Its another to put someone in place without oversight permanently.
“Paul asserted that government operating in secrecy is nothing new and pointed to the existence of czars since the 1970’s “
Uh huh.....Mr. Paul, who previously had 34 Czars??
Huh?
Most or all of them communist?
Thank you.
Absolutely Unconstitutional!
Bypassing the confirmation process required by the legislative branch is the taking illegal and unauthorized power by the Executive Branch.
Anyone who has anything to do with directing budget items, which are the people’s money, have to be qualified by congress through the hearing process. If they are purely in an advisory capacity, with no authority to administer or direct policy or money, they become the personal responsibility of the White Hose. But they can’t administer policy.
There goes that “crazy old man” making sense again....
I maintain the czars are Obama’s shadow government waiting.
Interestingly, if we called them ‘emissaries’ rather than ‘czars’ then they would probably not be getting any attention at all.
It’s like the old joke about prostitutes but it is too serious to be funny:
“We already know what you are. We’re just talking about price now.”
In this case, we already know that most politicians are unscrupulous whores. We’re just talking about a matter of degree.
Politicians of both parties are always only too willing to break the law and ignore the Constitution for a short term advantage benefiting them and their party.
And once again they hold true to form.
That’s exactly what the democrats have done in voting against even minor oversight for Obama’s Czars, even though they are trading away even more of their constitutional authority and responsibility to support Obama.
But if the tables were reversed, the republicans would do the same thing.
And Obama is doing the same thing his predecessors have done. He is walking down an unconstitutional path; one that republicans helped carve out.
The big difference here is that he is taking his power grab it to new heights (or lows) no one else thought was possible, and he is using his power and authority to further destroy Constitutional protections.
It turns out that our vaunted concepts of separation of powers and constitutional protections have been illusionary, held up by honor alone and ready to fall when a big enough scoundrel stomps on them.
Obama is that scoundrel and there isn’t even a squeal from the other two branches.
The Founders knew a scoundrel like Obama could come along.
They knew that greedy arrogant toadies could control the legislature, as they now do. They knew that weak, resentful, narrow minded people could sit on the Supreme Court as they have for years.
This is what concerned Thomas Jefferson and others. And this is why there is a second ammendment and other constitutional protections, thankfully not yet completely eroded. Will the Bill of Rights work to preserve the Republic as intended? That remains to be seen.
Thanks for the thread..
Bookmarked.
If it is unconstitutional, why can’t Paul sue the White House?
Need top constitutional attys on this one, and go ahead and start the lawsuits. This should have been done already. I think Glen Beck brought this czar thingy to light...others were asleep.
The Republican Party does not have access to top constitutional lawyers?
Shadow Government? Only accountable to NObama !!!
Who funded them in the first place?
What vote was taken in Congress?
What department pays them?
What department pays their staffs?
Who hired their staffs?
What authority do they all have? To do what?
There is alot fundamentally wrong with this whole picture.
Even Roosevelt had his Czars. They were called "Dollar a Year Men" but were in fact a shadow government during the war.
It would be interesting to watch the Liberal reaction to the next Republican President who decides to do the same exact thing except they would be titled Supreme Senators. I’m sure the libs would go along with it just like they are with the Obama Czars.
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.