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.
Fox has learned, the White House has urged Senate Democrats not to support an amendment that would impose congressional oversight on "czars."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, who is managing the spending bill on the Senate floor, told Collins earlier this week that she was prepared to accept the amendment, but that one Democrat had an objection. Both senators confirmed this to me directly.
Hm, something is amiss in the House, the White House, that is. If these czars are so needed, why should Obama not want congressional oversight on them? Oh, that's right, they're not really cabinet members, are they, but "advisors." Smells mighty fishy to me.
» Administration Pushes Dems to Oppose Reining in Czars The Speakers Lobby « FOXNews.com (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/24/administration-pressures-dems-to-oppose-reigning-in-czars/ - broken link)
Hm, something is amiss in the House, the White House, that is. If these czars are so needed, why should Obama not want congressional oversight on them? Oh, that's right, they're not really cabinet members, are they, but "advisors." Smells mighty fishy to me.
You know for all the so-called lovers of the Constitution, I would think that the ability of a President to appoint low level advisors of his choosing reenforces the separation of powers.
The President isn't an employee of the Congress.
And, as I have pointed out on numerous threads both the Constitution and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 reenforce that view.
You know for all the so-called lovers of the Constitution, I would think that the ability of a President to appoint low level advisors of his choosing reenforces the separation of powers.
The President isn't an employee of the Congress.
And, as I have pointed out on numerous threads both the Constitution and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 reenforce that view.
"So-called lovers of the Constitution?" You shouldn't refer to yourself in that fashion.
And no, the president is not an employee of the congress; he is, however, an employee of the citizens of the U.S.
I would think that the ability of a President to appoint low level advisors of his choosing reenforces the separation of powers.
These are not low-level advisors. Usually positions such as these are put through the confirmation process, but we know why he doesn't want that - they would be withdrawn post haste as a major embarrassment to obama.
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.
