regulator 0 #1 January 7, 2011 By posting this, it is not a disclosure to state that I approve or disapprove of the link...Just posting it for all to read http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136487-republicans-introduce-bill-to-eliminate-presidential-czars?sms_ss=digg&at_xt=4d263df8b7c12d4b%2C0 A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various "czars" in the Obama administration. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years. The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration. The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation. Republicans had complained about the president's use of czars to help advance his agenda in Congress. In particular, the GOP had harped about the personal history of Van Jones, the president's czar for "green jobs," over past comments Jones had made about Fox News came to light. Jones eventually resigned. Another prominent czar over the past year was Carol Browner, the president's energy and environmental adviser. She helped head up efforts in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the ultimately unsuccessful effort for an energy and climate bill from Congress. Republicans introduced several bills to eliminate czars in the last Congress, but similar legislation could conceivably advance in the House now that the GOP controls the chamber. "We haven’t gotten an indication of an exact timeline for committee action, considering that the bill was just filed yesterday," said Scalise spokesman Stephen Bell. "We hope to have this discussion in the near future as the congressman works to pursue all the bills he has introduced in the 112th Congress." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #2 January 7, 2011 QuoteBy posting this, it is not a disclosure to state that I approve or disapprove of the link...Just posting it for all to read 112th Congress." Bullshit, have you seen all the crimes commited by bikers? it is fuckkkiinnnnn...Oh wait, never mind......I thought I was someone else! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heatmiser 0 #3 January 7, 2011 What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #4 January 7, 2011 I remember the first "czar" appointed by a modern president. It was William Simon, appointed as "Energy Czar" by (rather staunch Republican) Nixon. So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #5 January 7, 2011 I remember hearing about the 'energy czar' you are referring to when I was growing up. But I have no clue about any current czars and what powers they posess, so I'm going to keep my mouth (fingers) shut on this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #6 January 7, 2011 The problem seems to be these czars can affect policy yet are not required to be approved by congress. Constitution is pretty clear that advisors to the Prez i.e. cabinet members must be approved. I think it's gotten out of hand and both parties have wanted to tone it down a bit.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #7 January 7, 2011 Quote I remember the first "czar" appointed by a modern president. It was William Simon, appointed as "Energy Czar" by (rather staunch Republican) Nixon. So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. Ya but so is the healthcare bill so I say let's just do what the left wants and rewrite it "progressively". Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 January 7, 2011 Quote So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. In response the White House will just start appointing barons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #9 January 8, 2011 QuoteQuote So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. In response the White House will just start appointing barons. Too late. Richard Nixon had Duke Ellington working at the White House as long ago as 1969. Ronald Reagan took it as precedent and had Count Basie work the White House in 1984.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 January 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. In response the White House will just start appointing barons. Too late. Richard Nixon had Duke Ellington working at the White House as long ago as 1969. Ronald Reagan took it as precedent and had Count Basie work the White House in 1984. Let's not forget Nixon also had Elvis, "The King."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #11 January 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. In response the White House will just start appointing barons. Seems the GOP is already forgetting their promise to cite constitutional authority on every bill, what a surprise. And then the two GOP clowns who thought they could be sworn in to Congress at a fund raiser.... Priceless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 January 8, 2011 QuoteSeems the GOP is already forgetting their promise to cite constitutional authority on every bill, what a surprise. Reading is fundamental: "The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #13 January 8, 2011 The "new" rule by the GOP requiring all bills to cite Constitutional authority is pure and simple grandstanding. Already most laws have what is called a jurisdictional statement or finding that reference the specific sections of the Constitution that are the authority of the law. Also, House committees already have a requirement that their reports contain the specific constitutional authorizations for the laws that they're considering. Not that facts matter to the Tea Party morons who were taken in by the "new" rule.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #14 January 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote So has it gotten out of hand in the past 30 years? I don't know. But I do know that the proposed legislation, restricting the Executive's powers, is very probably unconstitutional. IMO, it would take a constitutional amendment to lawfully accomplish what these guys have in mind. In response the White House will just start appointing barons. Too late. Richard Nixon had Duke Ellington working at the White House as long ago as 1969. Ronald Reagan took it as precedent and had Count Basie work the White House in 1984. Let's not forget Nixon also had Elvis, "The King." Nat King Cole played the White House for Eisenhower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #15 January 8, 2011 As to executive powers - he can hire whoever he wants - the congress doesn't have to pay them. I am in favor in any legislation that limits federal government. I have to agree that all these administrative agencies and offices can't be a good thing. What do they produce?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #16 January 8, 2011 QuoteAs to executive powers - he can hire whoever he wants - the congress doesn't have to pay them. I am in favor in any legislation that limits federal government. I have to agree that all these administrative agencies and offices can't be a good thing. What do they produce? +1"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #17 January 8, 2011 I understand that a President can't know everything about everything. He will need help from time to time to make informed decisions. That said, this president has delegated all of his authority to his record number of Czars so he can go on his eternal campaign. He has shown time and time again he has no clue as to what is in the monstrous bills he has signed, or the effect those bills will have on this country. There needs to be limits set on numbers and authority of the Czars and some kind of vetting process. The President needs to have some clue as to what is going on in his administration."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #18 January 8, 2011 Quote What do they produce? Widgets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
