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 farther away people are from Washington the easier they are to manipulate when it comes to imagining what goes on in Washington.... what a "federal employee" is.... "czars"....
The farther away people are from Washington the easier they are to manipulate when it comes to imagining what goes on in Washington.... what a "federal employee" is.... "czars"....
Speaking of manipulation...
Spinning the issue so it's the "people" being "manipulated" rather than the fact that these radical appointee's are involved in policy making.
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.
Federal employees are required to get a security clearance. Some of the President's czars could not get a job as a Grade 3 clerk because they could not pass the security clearance criteria and I'm not just talking about the tax cheats.
Federal employees are required to get a security clearance. Some of the President's czars could not get a job as a Grade 3 clerk because they could not pass the security clearance criteria and I'm not just talking about the tax cheats.
Gee you musn't understand the process, living so far away in TN and all lol
Since Obama is abusing the constitution by using these czars and they are a part of his policy decisions, they should be run through the ringer.
The perfect example of why they need to have background checks run is in the case of Van Jones. Jones would still be taking our tax money had it not been the people who stood up to Obama on this choice.
Obama would have overlooked the fact that he chose a commi to be a part of his team.
Why do we even need czars in the first place?
The easy thing to do is drop them all and save the wasted money.
All these czars and so called experts on team Obama and they still cannot get anything right.
Team Obamabots wont like this because it may show us that every Obama czar has some pretty bad backgrounds.
They can probably wheel and deal outside the realm of public scrutiny.
They also do not have to be accountable for their actions to Congress.
They report ONLY to the President and can invoke Executive Privilege otherwise.
It's the power who stands behind them that gives them power.
If they report ONLY to the President and can invoke Executive Privilege, then you're going to have to do a lot of pruning of the lists of czars. Because mighty few enjoy those qualifications.
Speaking of manipulation...
Spinning the issue so it's the "people" being "manipulated" rather than the fact that these radical appointee's are involved in policy making.
Actually, people are being manipulated.
One, what are the specific qualities that make up "czars"?
I've asked this repeatedly on these "czar" threads, and no one seems to have an answer.
Is a "czar" only appointed by the President? The list has people who are appointed by other people.
Is a "czar" involved in policy decisions? The list has people who aren't involved in deciding any policies.
Does a "czar" have direct access to the President? Better chuck most of the list, because hardly any of them have direct access to the President.
If a "czar" is already subject to legislative confirmation and oversight, is he still a "czar"? More trimming involved.
The handful that are left, the ones appointed by the President, who have access to the President, whose tasks actually do effect executive policy, and who aren't actually already being confirmed, then, yes, absolutely, let Congress notify the Executive Branch that they want to review these appointments, let the Executive Branch make its case of why they shouldn't be subject to review, let the Judicial Branch determine if these appointments are primary-level appointments. That's the process, and it actually works.
George Washington made 120 appointments, while George Bush nominated over 2 000 "czars". I say "czars" because that seems to be the hip thing to say these days. The real term is "adviser".
The truth is that there are two kinds of nominations:
1. Those which require senate approval
2. Those which do not require approval
Can you imagine the senate trying to process every appointment? They would have no time for anything else. In the case of Van Jones for example, in order to nail his '*******' comments, someone would have been required to listen to every speech he has ever made.
Bush Sr tried to appoint Carson to his Secretary of agriculture, but the Senate rejected the appointment due to a controversy. The Sec of Agriculture is a position which requires senate approval. So, Bush Jr created a new position for him which did not require approval, and he became Bush's agriculture "czar". Should they change the process? Yes, probably, but it won't be easy, and not without risk. Read on.
There are problems with the senate approval process. When Madison was president there was a senator who wanted his brother to be Sec of State. Madison had his own, more qualified candidate for the position, but the senator scuttled his approval, and the senators brother became Sec Of State. He was totally unqualified, and the next president Quincy said that the war of 1812 would never have taken place if Madison's own choice had been the Sec Of State.
When Bush was trying to get four people nominated to his cabinet in 2001 he realized the nominations were being stalled by Jesse Helms (R) of North Carolina. Why? Because the senator had a slew of demands which had to be met before he would approve anyone: He wanted a recent free trade bill with Africa and the Caribbean rewritten to better protect the North Carolina textile industry, and he also wanted his own candidate installed as textile trade negotiator. He then placed holds on the nominees, effectively crippling the new administration's treasury department (source: WSJ).
Is this ethical, or even legal? Any senator can place a hold on a nomination for any reason until the executive branch gives the senator what he or she wants.
So, be careful what you ask for.
2000 czars???? Man you're loopy. BTW, what you liberals are missing is that the positions have to be created by congress, which they all weren't.
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.
