News Here a Czar, there a Czar, everywhere a Czar Czar

[Jasongreat]

I never suggested any line of reasoning like that. Just the opposite. The President is responsible for all executive power, delegated to others or not. Are you suggesting that the President must personally pull each trigger to defend us if we are attacked, instead of delegating power?

Did you misread my posts?

I might have, and if so I apologize. But the constitution specifically says that as president he will be commander and chief of the military. Where does it say he can delegate the powers given to him? Would you allow him to delegate commander in chief to one general? Of course obama would be responsible for the generals action, at least at the next election, what could happen in four years? How long did Hilter take to march across europe? How long would it take to institute martial law in the u.s.? I realize these are extreme examples, but one needs to see where decisions could lead, not just if they believe in the decisions made at this time. We do live in a precendential society so if you overstep the constitution once, you give all other ideas(even ones you disagree with) a way to overstep the next time. Our constitution was written as a limit on government, what good is it if we allow them to go beyond these well defined limits? For example the same precedent that says you can tell me not to smoke, is the same precedent that will allow me to tell you you can't be gay(and no I don't believe in either of the examples).

 

[Al68]

No one but the president himself can weild executive power. since all executive power is VESTED in the PRESIDENT(not the president and his delegates).

That's simply not what the word vested means. No one has suggested that executive power is vested in his delegates. Vested means it's all his responsibility, not that he can't have help. There is no prohibition in the constitution on the President delegating vested power. The executive actions are delegated, not the "vestment". The President remains vested and is still responsible for it.

National defense is executive power. Must the President wield it all alone? I hope he has a big gun.

 

[Al68]

I might have, and if so I apologize. But the constitution specifically says that as president he will be commander and chief of the military. Where does it say he can delegate the powers given to him? Would you allow him to delegate commander in chief to one general?

The constitutional title "Commander in Chief" belongs to the President. Every President has delegated all military power to military officers. That's their only purpose. The power is still vested in the President even when delegated.

As far as I know, no sitting President has ever exercised military power personally.

I think we agree in principle. Note that delegated power can be undelegated or revoked at any time by the President because he only delegated it, he didn't give it away.

 

[Jasongreat]

That's simply not what the word vested means. No one has suggested that executive power is vested in his delegates. Vested means it's all his responsibility, not that he can't have help. There is no prohibition in the constitution on the President delegating vested power. The executive actions are delegated, not the "vestment". The President remains vested and is still responsible for it.

National defense is executive power. Must the President wield it all alone? I hope he has a big gun.

According to the 1913 websters(closest definition to 1789 I could find)
vested: (law) Not in a state of contingency or suspension;FIXED; as vested rights, vested interest.
The consitution defines what the federaL government may do, if its not listed in the constitution specifically, it is left to the states or OR TO THE PEOPLE themselves, it's not whatever isn't defined can be claimed by whoever wants to. However, in the brilliant foresight(and humility) of our founders, they left an avenue to change those powers through constitutional ammendment, but that is to hard, so now politicians and judges are content with just changing the meaning of words.
As to your last statement see my above post about this(commander in chief of the military is one of these defined duties).

 

[Al68]

According to the 1913 websters(closest definition to 1789 I could find)
vested: (law) Not in a state of contingency or suspension;FIXED; as vested rights, vested interest.
The consitution defines what the federaL government may do, if its not listed in the constitution specifically, it is left to the states or OR TO THE PEOPLE themselves, it's not whatever isn't defined can be claimed by whoever wants to. However, in the brilliant foresight(and humility) of our founders, they left an avenue to change those powers through constitutional ammendment, but that is to hard, so now politicians and judges are content with just changing the meaning of words.
As to your last statement see my above post about this(commander in chief of the military is one of these defined duties).

I agree with everything said here. I never suggested otherwise.

 

[Jasongreat]

I agree with everything said here. I never suggested otherwise.

Well then, what were we arguing about? LOL. I must of mis-understood, sorry.

 

[Wax]

Bush had 31 Czars. What's the big deal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#By_administration

 

[Jasongreat]

So the czars all started with FDR, what a surprise. You can sure find the believers in the all powerful national government easily. The majority of presidents chose not to follow that precedent to the same degree as the original grabber of un-constitutional authority, and it also makes it hard to argue that Bush was a conservative(thank god I've never tried to argue that point).

FDR had internment camps. Whats the big deal? (Its racist)
Hoover abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Whats the big deal? (It started the great depression)
FDR spent large amounts of debt, in a recession(after Hoovers programs caused the recession). Whats the big deal? (It prolonged the gd)
First Bush and now Obama are following the same pattern. Whats the big deal? (Only time will tell, but so far I would have to say it doesn't look too good)

Isnt that the purpose of history? Learning from your mistakes. It is not to insure the same things happening again, because it has happened in the past. What would the point of that be? Do we have to accept czars solely because other generations believed them to be neccesary? Or even other recent administrations, one party or the other.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So the czars all started with FDR... :snip:

Ok... so what's the big deal? Has anyone figured out yet what these "Czars" do that is so horrible, wrong, and apparently borderline illegal? I really don't get it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Its not so much what the czars do, it is more the fact that the general government was never given the power to create a czar. It is that certain executives have decided that it would be more efficient to spread around the power(and responsibilities) of the executive, a power they were never given the right to do. If I have to blindly follow the laws government creates, why don't they have to blindly follow the laws that supposedly govern them? They actually take an oath as to what their responsibilities include, my responsibility is just assumed because I was born into this society.
So what do the czars do that is so great, right, and most of all is successful? We have a drug czar, but drugs are easily found anywhere in the country. We have an education czar, and yet have a terrible education system. We have a health czar, and are still some of the most unhealthy citizens of the world. I can't see one czar that has succeeded at their title, can you name one? So they are not brought into succeed, just to take some weight(responsibility) off the executive? If they are worth keeping, let's add that to the constitution, remember it can be ammended at any time, the governmental officers don't need to grab power all they have to do is ask, but we may say no, it is just much more efficient to grab the power, but is it legal? If they can create any power they want, what is the purpose of the consitution? If any governmental officer wants help with their official duties, I say let them have it, but since he/she is dishing out his/her responsibilities they are the ones who need to pay them, not us(the taxpayer). I can't imagine obama paying over 30 czars the kind of money they are making out of his own pocket. Would this kind of thing fly in the real world? If you hired someone to do a job for you, and you were quoted a certain price that you agreed to, and then after the job was started he came to you to receive payment and you noticed that he added three workers to the initial price, and that he was expecting you to pay them, because they helped him get the job done. Would you say ok, or would you say ok but their wage is coming out of your initial contract not in addition to it?

 

[lisab]

Ok... so what's the big deal? Has anyone figured out yet what these "Czars" do that is so horrible, wrong, and apparently borderline illegal? I really don't get it.

I agree, SA. Like I said many posts ago, I hate the "Czar" title (dang, what idiot thought of that?!?), but I don't think it's wrong for the President to assign one person to manage one issue, and to be his go-to-person regarding that issue. I can even see where that might make government *more* efficient.

 

[Wax]

So the czars all started with FDR, what a surprise. You can sure find the believers in the all powerful national government easily. The majority of presidents chose not to follow that precedent to the same degree as the original grabber of un-constitutional authority, and it also makes it hard to argue that Bush was a conservative(thank god I've never tried to argue that point).

FDR had internment camps. Whats the big deal? (Its racist)
Hoover abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. Whats the big deal? (It started the great depression)
FDR spent large amounts of debt, in a recession(after Hoovers programs caused the recession). Whats the big deal? (It prolonged the gd)
First Bush and now Obama are following the same pattern. Whats the big deal? (Only time will tell, but so far I would have to say it doesn't look too good)

Isnt that the purpose of history? Learning from your mistakes. It is not to insure the same things happening again, because it has happened in the past. What would the point of that be? Do we have to accept czars solely because other generations believed them to be neccesary? Or even other recent administrations, one party or the other.

According to your reasoning, every single president who used a Czar created some type of social disaster and that the Czar had some type of direct relationship to the disaster. Do you know what a fallacy means?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree, SA. Like I said many posts ago, I hate the "Czar" title (dang, what idiot thought of that?!?), but I don't think it's wrong for the President to assign one person to manage one issue, and to be his go-to-person regarding that issue. I can even see where that might make government *more* efficient.

Let's not forget the President has a Cabinet.

 

[Jasongreat]

According to your reasoning, every single president who used a Czar created some type of social disaster and that the Czar had some type of direct relationship to the disaster. Do you know what a fallacy means?

No, according to my reasoning, presidents that have grabbed power not given to them by the constitution have had bad consequences come from those assumptions. I did include Hoover, who had no czars according to the wiki article.

I was answering the question of since bush had czars, what's wrong with obama having them too. Just because it has been done, doesn't make it right. I tried to show examples of some of the biggest un-constitutional power grabs, and the consequences of those. I never said czars caused anything, but I have stated czars haven't and won't solve anything, except for getting the president out of doing what he was hired to do.

 

[lisab]

Let's not forget the President has a Cabinet.

So you want him to expand his cabinet, to include these one-issue managers? I don't see that these so-called "czars" are covering issues that warrant that.

 

[WhoWee]

So you want him to expand his cabinet, to include these one-issue managers? I don't see that these so-called "czars" are covering issues that warrant that.

No, I want him to use the tools he has, before creating more departments.

 

[Hepth]

No, I want him to use the tools he has, before creating more departments.

But he's not making new cabinet positions? And you can't expect EVERYTHING to be handled by a handful of people. So you make new positions. Which cabinet member would you have in charge of WAN/LAN/Internet/web security at the whitehouse, that they should be able to directly answer his questions pertaining to its administration, plans, etc?
Well, its not really feasible to assign this task to DoD or DHS cabinet members, they have so much on their own plate. So you make a new position "Director of the White House Office of Cybersecurity". It happens, since you make a specific position, that you get this unoffical nickname "Czar".

Doesn't seem that wrong/crazy... Seems like intelligent management.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its not so much what the czars do, it is more the fact that the general government was never given the power to create a czar. It is that certain executives have decided that it would be more efficient to spread around the power(and responsibilities) of the executive, a power they were never given the right to do.

My impression has been that these people are advisors, not that they have been given any special authority or power that is generally invested in the president. It would seem they mostly do research and hold meetings with people who represent interests in their specified domain and then take information and findings back to the president to use in making decisions. This allows the office of the president to gather information for decision making purposes on multiple important issues while the president maintains his general responsibilities and a fairly rigorous schedule.

If I am wrong and these people do actually possesses any executive authority then please show me examples, I would like to be enlightened. So far as I have seen though we only have accusations of the president outsourcing his responsibilities and no evidence to back them up.

 

[WhoWee]

My impression has been that these people are advisors, not that they have been given any special authority or power that is generally invested in the president. It would seem they mostly do research and hold meetings with people who represent interests in their specified domain and then take information and findings back to the president to use in making decisions. This allows the office of the president to gather information for decision making purposes on multiple important issues while the president maintains his general responsibilities and a fairly rigorous schedule.

If I am wrong and these people do actually possesses any executive authority then please show me examples, I would like to be enlightened. So far as I have seen though we only have accusations of the president outsourcing his responsibilities and no evidence to back them up.

Here is one example to consider.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57G0E820090817

"U.S. pay czar says he can "claw back" exec compensation
Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:11am EDT

By Steve Eder

MARTHA'S VINEYARD, MASSACHUSETTS (Reuters) - Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said on Sunday he has broad and "binding" authority over executive compensation, including the ability to "claw back" money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power.

Feinberg told Reuters that Citigroup Inc included the contract of energy trader Andrew Hall in submissions due Friday by seven major companies still locked in the federal government's TARP Program.

Feinberg said he hasn't looked at Hall's contract, which reports have said could pay him as much as $100 million this year.

"Whether I have jurisdiction to decide his compensation or not, we will take a look and decide over the next few weeks," Feinberg said after speaking at a public forum in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, part of a newsmaker series hosted by the Martha's Vineyard Times newspaper.

Feinberg has been consulting with seven companies that have yet to pay back money they borrowed from the government, including Citi, American International Group Inc, Bank of America Corp, Chrysler Financial, Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors Co and GMAC Inc.

Those companies faced a deadline of Friday of submitted proposals to Feinberg for their top 25 employees.

Feinberg said on Sunday that decisions he makes will be "binding," but the law limits his power over contracts signed before February 11, 2009.

He also said he has the authority to use a "clawback" provision to go after compensation for executives from any company that received money from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Progr.am (TARP).

"I have the discretion, conferred upon by Congress, to attempt to recover compensation that has already been paid to executives not only in these companies, but in any company that received federal assistance," Feinberg said during his remarks.

Asked by Reuters if he could use that ability to target a firm like Goldman Sachs Group Inc, which paid back $10 billion in bailout money, Feinberg said: "Anything is possible under the law."

"I can claw back, but we haven't focused on that at all," he said."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is one example to consider.

That's a power of the executive branch? Obama's responsibilities being given to someone else?

 

[Hepth]

But he was legally appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury as a Special Master of the TARP fund. And according to wikipedia:
"The role of the special master (who is frequently, but not necessarily, an attorney) is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to make sure that the court order is being followed, and to report on the activities of the entity being supervised in a timely matter to the judge or the judge's designated representatives"

Which means he HAS the authority.

I don't understand what you would want, NOONE in charge of TARP's handling? Do you think every single position in the government should be appointed by election?

 

[WhoWee]

But he was legally appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury as a Special Master of the TARP fund. And according to wikipedia:
"The role of the special master (who is frequently, but not necessarily, an attorney) is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to make sure that the court order is being followed, and to report on the activities of the entity being supervised in a timely matter to the judge or the judge's designated representatives"

Which means he HAS the authority.

I don't understand what you would want, NOONE in charge of TARP's handling? Do you think every single position in the government should be appointed by election?

Not even the IRS can tell you HOW to spend your money. Perhaps if Congress had READ the legislation - they could have stipulated use of the funds.

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone see a pattern developing?

Step 1.) Identify a crisis
Step 2.) Draft a multi-hundreds of billions of dollar - 500 to 1,000 page Bill that nobody has time to read or understand stuffed with pet projects and special interest goodies (yes - lobbys and earmarks included) and force through
Step 3.) Shovel the money out of the door haphazarly with little or no control - not even sure where it went
Step 4.) Realize new problems and consequences have resulted
Step 5.) Over-react to the new consequences with additional Government expansion and "control" - which means more regulation and expense to business
Step 6.) Defend actions to public and identify "bad guys" that caused problem - divert attention away from politicians
Step 7.) Explain to public everything is now under control in spite of efforts by "business people who caused the problem"
Step 8.) Repeat process

Maybe it's a coincidence?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not even the IRS can tell you HOW to spend your money. Perhaps if Congress had READ the legislation - they could have stipulated use of the funds.

In this particular case we are talking about an emergency bill that they probably had little time to consider under the circumstances. And I doubt that many people cared much about people getting large bonuses until John Q heard about it and got miffed.
Its already been fairly well run through the ringer whether or not the government can do much about it or whether or not they should. JQP has mostly forgotten about it and so have most politicians I am sure.

Does anyone see a pattern developing?

Step 1.) Identify a crisis
Step 2.) Draft a multi-hundreds of billions of dollar - 500 to 1,000 page Bill that nobody has time to read or understand stuffed with pet projects and special interest goodies (yes - lobbys and earmarks included) and force through
Step 3.) Shovel the money out of the door haphazarly with little or no control - not even sure where it went
Step 4.) Realize new problems and consequences have resulted
Step 5.) Over-react to the new consequences with additional Government expansion and "control" - which means more regulation and expense to business
Step 6.) Defend actions to public and identify "bad guys" that caused problem - divert attention away from politicians
Step 7.) Explain to public everything is now under control in spite of efforts by "business people who caused the problem"
Step 8.) Repeat process

Maybe it's a coincidence?

Its the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' at work. Any time you put some plan into action there are likely to be unexpected problems that need to be fixed and dealt with. And of course when you are dealing with politicians of any stripe they are likely to try to make sure the buck gets passed.

Step two is certainly something I think we should see changed. I have heard about pushes to reform the manner in which bills are constructed and passed. Unfortunately I doubt it will ever change.

Something I noticed when I recently looked up the executive orders regarding presidential records though was that Obama's new executive order is actually much shorter and more elegant than Bush's was. I am wondering if that is because he is a lawyer and actually oversaw the drafting or even wrote it himself.

 

[overtherainbo]

Dear friends,
I am so pleased to read these and other comments of this nature; for several months now I have been so concerned that little things like the White House informant site might thoroughly crush debate. And these are truly among the serious issues; but, boy, some of you are really missing the important points!
1) an advisor advises; he exorcises no authority beyond his own office staff. He makes no policy, and passes no regulations that have the force of statutory law. If he is smart he will be invisible rather than generating headlines with his remarks and activities. He is generally neither vetted nor questioned by Congress, as his role is usually specific to the individual serving as President.
2) a cabinet member advises; the President has delegated a fragment his authority to a cabinet-member to control a specific activity, and that cabinet-member through the agency he heads will enact regulations ( with the same statutory force as laws enacted by Congress ) to organize, enforce, and punish those who transgress. Generally the main body of regulations remain intact, and react slowly to changes within the environment they are designed to control; agency regulations are published through the Government Printing Office and are not mysterious.
3) A cabinet-member is vetted by Congress - the person is known by his professional record, etc.
4) In the case of cabinet-members or the case of the President as Commander-in-Chief there exists a specific chain-of-command of delegated, specific authority; there are oaths of honor and trust to be upheld.
5) There exist specific laws to be applied to malfeasance or dereliction to a specific office whether elective or appointed; the oaths of professionals like doctors, lawyers, and CPAs, and the oaths of an office, elective or appointed carry a sanction: those who fail in their duty can be punished with the loss of a career and removal from office.
6) But - and this is very much the issue - if the President has placed these people in a position to exorcise any sort of power, how is that power defined?
a) They haven't been vetted by Congress; so if they are tax cheats, felons, or persons of dubious character nobody knows.
b) What is their mission and authority? Has it been defined in print so that any citizen can know if he is about to be arrested by one of the new Czars for activities that were legal before Jan. 2009? The new Czars' missions are vaguely defined and seem to overlap the authority of agencies that already exist; agencies with very clearly defined areas of activity, clear chains of command populated with known officers, published regulations, Inspector-Generals, Congressional oversight, and designated rules for administrative arbitration and judicial review--additionally, the "hard look doctrine" can almost guarantee additional interest from Congress, and that the agency will explain their decisions to Congress.
c) if a person with delegated authority to act in the President's name performs an outrageous act, how do we address the act? Since he does not exist in the framework of a specific office, there exist no rules to define the act or punish the offense. If Obama has not delegated his authority to a person with professional credentials, those cannot be stripped for professional misconduct. We are currently living in a defacto one party republic; Obama can literally do anything and there is only an infinitesimal possibility that Congress will do anything, or, indeed, show any interest.
d) I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on it's face, it looks like Obama is trying to do an end-run around Congress by appointing people to operate in areas of activity that are properly the sphere of activity regulated by a duly constituted agency with oversight by the Congress. This evades all the normal controls that ensure fair treatment to common citizens. This is the very establishment of a shadow government that duplicates the offices and activities of the constitutional government, that executes the powers of the administration beyond the courts or the legislature, eventually by-passes legitimate authority, and eventually renders the legitimate government irrelevant.
e) There is one government in recent history known to have operated in this manner. The head of the government was legally elected, but in short order he found that the economic considerations, rampant partizan politics, and emergencies had so disrupted the State that he needed to rule through emergency decrees. His political party had long since duplicated the administrative offices of the legitimate government so that he simply delegated new orders and operations to his party members and by-passed balky administrative types who insisted on following the rule of law. His second-in-command reorganized the various municipal police forces into one federalized police force; and with new laws exempting the police and their activities from judicial review, they began rounding up dissenters. The leader was supported by an aggressive political party with street thugs as enforcers; the legislative branch existed as a rubber stamp; the only remaining news organizations and labor unions were organized and controlled by party leaders; and life down to the suburban block was controlled by low-level party hacks, and youth groups sang praises to the Leader and were rewarded for reporting dissenters and those were unenthusiastic. The Leader was the Times Man-of-the-Year, and appeared of the cover of the magazine numerous times before 1940.
But even after Hitler conquered the whole Europe, and had armies fighting from North Africa to the outskirts of Moscow; even after rumor of concentration camps and the slaughter enacted by the SS death squads following in the wake of Blitzkrieg; even after some 20 million people lay dead on the world's battlefields, and experienced the treachery that lead to the ruin of Pearl Harbor nobody expected Congress to pass thousands of pages of legislation without reading the freaking bill. FDR didn't use intimidation, he didn't empower thugs to act as enforcers, his legislation, however radical it may have seemed at the time, was at least subjected to the normal, legal Congressional debate. Obama has done everything to arouse my fears. Overtherainbo

 

[Jasongreat]

That's a power of the executive branch? Obama's responsibilities being given to someone else?

No its not a power of the executive, IMHO that's even worse than delegating his reponsibilities, he's delegating power he doesn't and wasnt supposed to have. It seems to me you are arguing that since he is not delegating his power, but inventing power and giving that power away,it is all right for him to do so.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, subpart 2 states:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided 2/3 of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,shall appoint ambassadors, other ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers not herein provided for,and which shall be provided for by law: but the congress may by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

It seems the framers didnt trust the executive branch too much, since everything listed in this section has to be approved by the legislative branch, either by the senate giving their advise and consent, or by congress passing a law giving consent that way. So if you can show me the law that says he can appoint czars without consent, executive orders excluded, or the advice of the senate, I guess I would have to agree that there is nothing wrong with him appointing czars, until then I am of the opinion he(and quite a few other presidents) have overstepped the bounds of the constitution. If there is a law, that gives any president a blank check to make up offices and fill them with whoever he wants, then I guess my problems with executives overstepping the bounds of the constitution will have to be re-focused on the legislative, and maybe even the judicial branches, since by allowing the executive to over step, the others branches are not fulfilling their duties to check and balance each other. Also, I would have to say that the people arent doing their duty to keep the government in check either, if they allowed that law to pass, with no political consequences.