Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions."
"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions."
I think that "all" political appointees should be vetted or screened by Congress, Democrat and Republican.
I think that "all" political appointees should be vetted or screened by Congress, Democrat and Republican.
The Constitution doesn't agree with you. The Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is not required to get the approval of the Legislative Branch on all it's employees any more than the Legislative Branch needs the approval of the Executive Branch on it's hires.
Funny, during the Bush administration, the right seemed to believe that the Executive Branch was the most powerful and oversaw the Legislative Branch. Now it seems like they think the Legislative Branch should oversee the Executive Branch. What a difference an election makes.
The Constitution doesn't agree with you. The Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is not required to get the approval of the Legislative Branch on all it's employees any more than the Legislative Branch needs the approval of the Executive Branch on it's hires.
Funny, during the Bush administration, the right seemed to believe that the Executive Branch was the most powerful and oversaw the Legislative Branch. Now it seems like they think the Legislative Branch should oversee the Executive Branch. What a difference an election makes.
Uuuuh so you don't think the czars should be vetted?
"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions."
Seems to me that any President should have available to him or her a number of advisers who don't have to go through the usual nominating and confirming process. If such people end up embarrassing the President for one reason or another, well, that doesn't reflect well on how the President picks advisers, does it?
In terms of background checks and formal vetting procedures, I don't know. I wouldn't want to deprive any President of the counsel that he/she wants, and I wouldn't want to put the background checks and/or vetting responsibilities on Congress. They have enough trouble trying to keep up with the Presidential appointments that actually do require Congressional action. Last time I looked, the Senate had some 60 Obama appointees waiting for confirmation.
Seems to me that any President should have available to him or her a number of advisers who don't have to go through the usual nominating and confirming process. If such people end up embarrassing the President for one reason or another, well, that doesn't reflect well on how the President picks advisers, does it?
In terms of background checks and formal vetting procedures, I don't know. I wouldn't want to deprive any President of the counsel that he/she wants, and I wouldn't want to put the background checks and/or vetting responsibilities on Congress. They have enough trouble trying to keep up with the Presidential appointments that actually do require Congressional action. Last time I looked, the Senate had some 60 Obama appointees waiting for confirmation.
So rather than streamline the vetting process you say disregard it all together?
I can't think of a worse idea for our country other than to pluck advisors right out of prison.
And your right, Obama lost some more of his shine with this Van Jones debacle.
Seems to me that any President should have available to him or her a number of advisers who don't have to go through the usual nominating and confirming process. If such people end up embarrassing the President for one reason or another, well, that doesn't reflect well on how the President picks advisers, does it?
In terms of background checks and formal vetting procedures, I don't know. I wouldn't want to deprive any President of the counsel that he/she wants, and I wouldn't want to put the background checks and/or vetting responsibilities on Congress. They have enough trouble trying to keep up with the Presidential appointments that actually do require Congressional action. Last time I looked, the Senate had some 60 Obama appointees waiting for confirmation.
I think that background checks should be a must. These people will be privy to a great deal of sensitive data and information. If they can't pass the check how can they be trusted with classified materials?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
