Posted on 10/23/2009 6:48:46 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress - a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation.
-SNIP-
The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers.
-SNIP-
"We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current administration," Mr. Craig wrote.
-SNIP-
....Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has criticized.
Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Obama’s 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=player_embedded
Ping
While they are pissing on all American taxpayers, they are using the Constitution as disposable toilet paper to wipe their behinds with.
These are the consequences of losing an election.
These are the consequences of letting the other side pick your presidential candidate for you.
These are the consequences of decades of voter apathy that has allowed a bevy of Congress Critters to pursue a career of dismantling the United States one sentence of the Constitution at a time.
There are more consequences yet to come, many of them far more serious than what we have seen in just the past 9 months. Many of those consequences will result in the lost of millions of lives, more if things go even worse.
There are any number of issues that are ready to explode in our faces that will also be the direct consequence of electing a dedicated Socialist to the Oval Office along with his far-left radical communist friends.
All we can do right now is hold on, raise hell, and try to protect our own families any way we can. The elections a year from now offer a great deal of promise, but that is a year away and a lot is going to happen between now and then.
...
Miss Collins said that doesn’t make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama.
“I think Congress should be able to call the president’s climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards,” Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.
The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice.
At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created since he took office. Of those, she says 10 - the White House says eight - are in the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or requests for testimony.
...
Yes, these APPOINTED “czars” are making our POLICY and they are totally UNACCOUTNABLE.
YES, it is a SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
this gorup of a$$hats will give him a chest full of medals so he can have a uniform and be like the rest of the dirtbag dictators he loves to rusround himself.
Lock and load all the commie bag fastards. Time to clean house.
Thats why presidents love to appoint czars. They are`nt answerable to Congress or anyone else, except the person who appoints them.
I didn’t say it was likely; I just pointed out it was impeachable.
Isn’t there some constitutionally authorized bureaucrat already serving in a similar post these czars are suppose to be overseeing? Why would someone that is legally heading a bureaucracy take orders from some dirtbag that has no legal authority? If I were heading a federal agency I wouldn’t even return the czar’s phone call.
Pleading ignorant here, what are portfolio powers?
if they won't testify, then hit them in the pocketbook.
there is precedent for such.
You remember the song “Prop Me Up by the Jukebox When I Die”?
It may apply in the case of Senator Byrd.
there is precedent for such.
Skip the financial hemorrhaging the RIGHT can't afford.
THIS is totally unConstitutional.
Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White House “are solely advisory in nature” and have no independent authority.
Pay Czar Feinberg, Not Obama, Behind Decision to Slash Executive Pay
White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg did not seek President Obama’s approval to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/pay-czar-feinberg-obama-decision-slash-executive-pay/
White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president’s approval before making his decision.
The Treasury Department is expected to formally announce in the next few days a plan to slash annual salaries by about 90 percent from last year for the 25 highest-paid executives at the seven companies that received the most from the Wall Street bailout. Total compensation for the top executives at the firms would decline, on average, by about 50 percent.
The sweeping decision, though, came from Feinberg and not from President Obama.
One official told Fox News that Feinberg from the start had the independent authority to work with companies and make such a call. Obama was never required to sign off before final decisions were made.
(snip)
Maybe after 2010. Then I would bring up Rahm and grill him till he explodes and does something really stupid. He is hateful with a bad temper just like Clinton. I also would have pushed Clinton to the brink to see him do something stupid. He almost did it on national TV. I bet Hannity could do it.
Portfolio powers are powers given to a representative of a government that give authority to enact changes, set policy, alter mandates, and redistribute assets and monies, within a specific region/field/task designated in their appointment. It is not merely assessing and giving recommendations to superiors. Such as in an Ambassador, ny definition can act as a representaive of a government, whereas an ‘Ambassador without portfoloio’ does not have official authority, they are usually sent by their government to assess a crucial situation, and report back to their government, who then makes the actual decision(s).
That is my understanding of it, I dfo not claim it to be a fullly articulated explanation, but it’s good enough for most situations.
And portfolio Powers are exactly why the Obama administration is acting extra-Constitutionally, and in blatant violation of the Separation of Powers, usurping Congressional authority and duties.
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.