You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Feingold hits Obama's use of 'czars'
2009-10-08
A top Senate Democrat said just because other presidents have created "czars" to carry out administration policy does not mean President Obama is right to follow their lead - and warned that Congress may have to step in and keep White House appointees in check.

Senators say the arrangement goes against the Constitution because many czars are never vetted by Congress, even though they have a major role in making policy.

But there may be few options for reeling them in. Experts told Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who convened a hearing on the issue, that the tools available are either to cut off funding for the positions or write laws to control how much authority Congress gives the president.

"While there is a long history of the use of White House advisers and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate," said Mr. Feingold, chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee.
Posted by:Fred

#1  Senators say the arrangement goes against the Constitution because many czars are never vetted by Congress, even though they have a major role in making policy.

Actually goes back to one of the causa bellum of the English Civil War on who the King could appoint without the approval of Parliament. It's also one of the features of the Constitution, in that the founding fathers, still remembering their English heritage, explicitly wrote requirements for agents of the Executive to be subject to the Legislative Branch. For example, the President nominates officers, but Congress approves commissions.

But there may be few options for reeling them in.

Congress has the power of the purse. If it can cut funding for specific defense purposes, it can cut funding for other Executive activity. It's simply a question of will.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-10-08 08:12  

00:00