Liberal Senator Questions Obama on Czars

Well, at least he is asking the questions. More than Republicans bothered to do with Bush's czars or signing statements.

Personally, I think there's a lot of people outraged by czars but not sure why they are outraged. Perhaps we should figure out what exactly there role is before condemning them. If they're little more than policy advisors with a direct connection to president and the cabinet, I am not sure anyone will be able to draw the line to have "regulatory authority."

As someone who believes that the Executive Branch has become too powerful, I also have great concern over both the number of "czars" working for the president and the extent of their power. However, unlike some Republicans, who were completely silent about "czars" during the Bush's presidency and only began to complain once Obama became president, I have never agreed with the need for many of these "czars" and have been fairly outspoken against at least one of these czars--the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is essentially a propaganda arm of the federal government with no Constitutional justification for existing.

I agree with Feingold's decision to call a hearing and agree with most of what he said at the opening of the hearing, though I would be less inclined to give some of these "czars" the benefit of the doubt. The fact that a "czar" has been confirmed by congress really doesn't do much to placate me if the office or department which they are heading is not constitutionally justified in the first place.

Finally!!!!

I've been saying that "Czars" are unconstitutional since the first Bush, when I saw it come across a video game screen (drug czar) and struck me as odd. 1989 - the year I first started studying politics. Time flies when you're having fun.

If it "ain't" in the Constitution, then it shouldn't be part of the government. All tsars must go! (spelled it different that time just for fun).

If it "ain't" in the Constitution, then it shouldn't be part of the government. All tsars must go! (spelled it different that time just for fun).

Good, should we also get rid of the CIA, DEA, NSA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the NIH and the myriad of agencies that have been created since the 1800's, none of them are in the constitution.

Yes, we should get rid of them all and don't forget the FBI, NEA, etc, etc...

Yes, we should get rid of them all and don't forget the FBI, NEA, etc, etc...

Sounds like a plan to me...

Care to start a pool on how long the US stays a single country after we get rid of all of the Federal Agencies & Bureaucracies...

I give it five years. Tops.

Did you actually read Feingold's statement? Some of these "czars" are required by statute and require confirmation from the Senate. Do you see those as unconstitutional?

I'd say two years. The NEA is the only thing between keeping the Russians from storming the beaches and taking control of the US.

The problem is not so much the czars but the expansion of Executive Privilege and the erosion of Congressional oversight. The original idea behind the czars, to focus the various executive agencies on a single problem, is certainly reasonable in theory if not practice (bureaucracies respond to those who control the money and tend to circle the wagons for all others).

The problem is that the advisers to the President are covered by Executive Privilege. Bush, under the unitary executive theory, expanded the role of the advisers to actually directing the operations of the various executive departments. At the same time he shielded the same people under executive privilege so they did not have to answer to Congress. Bush/Chaney’s most serious expansion of the Executive Privilege was the idea that it shielded his advisers from testifying at all, not just that they didn’t have to testify about advice given directly to the President. They also claimed that the conversations these advisers had with others were as also shielded as if they were discussions with the President.

The president is the Chief Executive and is permitted to delegate his authority as he sees fit. The problem comes in when the advisers go extra legal. Think of Karl Rove and the United States attorney mess, where the DOJ was used for political purposes. The Attorney General, who is answerable to Congress, was bypassed.

Obama could short circuit all of this discussion by renouncing the Bush extensions to executive privilege. However, it is unreasonable to expect the President to give up power voluntarily. The Supreme Court can only respond to litigation coming its way and the Congress is unlikely to go to them since Alitio and Roberts were part of the team that came up the unified executive theory during the Reagan-Bush I years. Congress is going to have to balls up and work to reclaim their lost power. If they want it, which seems, at this point less than a sure bet.

The Constitution is silent on much of this. There is no mention of a cabinet in it. Rather the Executive branch organization was set up by statute. The balances of powers issues, such as executive privilege, were formed through a combination of judicial interpretation, statute and in the W. Bush case, out of thin air.

Another reason the various advisory positions described as, but not holding anything like a title of "czar" (or "tsar" JD) is the rather new concept of supermajority and the abuse of filibuster by both parties. If your goal in speaking out about the 'czars' is to hamstring every new administration, you're right on target. Imagine being named CEO of a company and then being unable to fill ANY of your top positions because 40% of your board of directors WANTS YOU TO FAIL. If your goal is actually NOT to fail, you'd do anything you could to get the hands and minds you need to do your job. You'd hire consultants, or if the rules allowed it (they do) you'd hire "advisors" who were not technically officers of the corporation.

So, beyond the partisan bickering here, how do we allow new presidents to have the staff they need WITHIN THE FIRST 100 DAYS? How about it? What would YOU do to improve the situation?

The term "czar" has pejorative connotations, as it hints at something alien and antithetical to everyone except the farthest Left, but the sense of the word has never been the real problem. What is more objectionable is that these people can be seen as figureheads at the very least, intended to give childish or childlike people (who view Washington as their parent) the reassuring sense that someone (a direct parental figure) personifies being "in charge" or this or that issue. What is worse, to those in the know, is that this is not only the creation of additional bureaucracy which usually is not needed (in many cases, Washington shouldn't be doing anything at all about this or that issue), and is a way to bypass Congressional oversight. (Ineptitude or a more competent but sinister threat, that is the question.) That this is being done by people making selective, dishonest complaints about the executive branch in the past (when there is a Republican in the White House, only) is unsurprising but not particularly newsworthy.

I agree with PWT on that one. Yes, get rid of those agencies, OR amend the Constitution to implement them. I've got no problem with amending the Constitution. It's the operation of our government outside of it that kills me.
The fact of the matter is, as the article points to, the Executive branch has too much power. That's been building up since Woodrow Wilson (or earlier in some opinions).

Green,
That's not a valid comparison (President vs CEO).

CEOs have an executre board and shareholders. A CEO does not have a built-in checks-and-balances, per se. The mass of the power in our government is meant for the people via Congress. The Executive is there for just that reason, to execute what Congress puts in. The SCOTUS is the referee.

And yes, we should hamstring every executive. He should not act as independently as has become the custom. That pesky Constitution!

Feingold is one of the few Congressmen of the liberal left who I would have little hesitation in voting for. I disagree with the man on a great number of issues, but he is morally consistent and ethically clean. He is a differing opion who I have the utmost respect for.

"Some of these "czars" are required by statute and require confirmation from the Senate. Do you see those as unconstitutional?"

Yes. It's a good start with the Senatorial confirmation, but it's just a start. If Czars are that necessary for the Executive branch, then change the Constitution to include them.

DLS, your venom about the left sometimes drives you to absurdity. "the farthest Left" is not likely to embrace the term 'czar' as it was the Russian Czar who was overthrown by the "farthest Left".

JD, that's one of your nuttier comments. The federal government has thousands upon thousands of employees who are not there by Constitutional decree, and are not subject to Senate confirmation. Get serious. Creating, eliminating, replacing, hiring and firing federal government jobs does not require a Constitutional amendment.

I'm not talking mere office workers here. I guy who reviews a persons tax return is not at stake here. People with power need the okeedokee of the people via Congress. That's all I'm saying. My point was that our government may or may not be in line with the Constitution. All I'm asking is that we step back, take a look at it, and ensure that we put it back the way it was intended - OR change the Constitution to include things we need.

Hiring and firing employees does not require a Constitutional Amendment. But the creation of power-weiding departments does.

I'm not sure what power "czars" have, actually. I should, I guess, and I suspect there is a range of positions from truly advisory-only to actually managerial. The oldest position, I think, is the "drug czar" established by Nixon. He made all kinds of stupid recommendations, such as mandatory sentences, but had no power to enact them. Congress did that. Do any of these "czars" actually have authority on their own?

Feingold is one of the few Congressmen of the liberal left who I would have little hesitation in voting for. I disagree with the man on a great number of issues, but he is morally consistent and ethically clean. He is a differing opion who I have the utmost respect for.

I'm of a similar mind on this. There are very few congressmen or congresswomen in either party that I could say that I admire. Republican Ron Paul gets my respect for his consistency in voting, regardless of which political party is in power, as well as his strong stance in favor of civil liberties. Feingold is also strong on civil liberties, although, his Campaign Finance Reform bill was antithetical to the 1st Amendment. Feingold was also a critic of Bill Clinton was he president.

Yes. It's a good start with the Senatorial confirmation, but it's just a start. If Czars are that necessary for the Executive branch, then change the Constitution to include them.

This makes the most sense. The more power that an advisor or officer in the Executive Branch possesses, the more oversite that should be required. However, the ideal thing to do would be to get rid of unconstitutional departments unless congress wants to amend the Constitution to give the federal government such regulatory power.