Doubts about “czarism” were expressed long before the Jones dust-up by Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), who wrote to Obama in February that “the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd… sir, perhaps you’ve heard of this little document called the Constitution. In Article II Section 2 Clause 2, it states…

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established 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.

Sen. Bryd, in light of ongoing un-Constitutional Czar appointments, will you press for impeachment proceedings against the President for knowingly circumventing Senatorial oversight, a known violation of his Oath of Office?

Senate Democrats, under pressure from a White House arguing separation of powers, rejected a GOP attempt Thursday to provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of 18 so-called czars appointed by the Obama administration without Senate confirmation.

Democrats employed a procedural tactic to kill the GOP proposal, which would have withheld federal funds for the creation of any new, unconfirmed czar positions until the administration agreed to allow the individuals to testify before Congress under “reasonable” requests.

More ammunition for the next election cycle. Anytime Dems try to bring up transparency, this should haunt them. Hopefully, voters are paying attention.

, CO2 Producer said:
The numbers don’t signify the amount of comments—it’s an ongoing tally of administration czars.
B’dumpum.

LOL.

denver republican said:
On September 24th, 2009 at 12:35 pm, TigerLady said:
Is this nightmare ever going to end?
Yes, on January 20, 2013.
I have no doubt the Republic will survive until then. It’ll be banged up and dented and will require some serious repair work, but President Palin will be up for it.

I pray that you’re right. Forgive me for my skepticism but I don’t have a lot of confidence in the people who have thus far continued to put idiots like Murtha, Specter, McLame, etc in office year after year. I HOPE for CHANGE but fear the asylum has been over run by the craziest of the patients.

On September 24th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, CO2 Producer said:

The numbers don’t signify the amount of comments—it’s an ongoing tally of administration czars.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

B’dumpum.

There are 28 comments in this thread… why are they numbered in the 800,000s???

The effective functioning of our democracy…

these czars fail to provide the accountability, transparency, and oversight necessary for our constitutional democracy.

We are a Representative Republic, and anyone who has sat in the Senate chamber as long as she has should know that!

Transparency over the czars’ budgets has been lacking, so assertions by either side in that regard are deservedly questionable. However, it should be reasonable to assume that the czars will oversee the budgets in the areas of which they were put in charge on the president’s behalf in order “to coordinate activities within the government to address immediate challenges,” so I can see why some look to the money appropriated to those particular areas to deduce the czars’ budgets.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/23/phil-kerpen-browner-secret-white-house-power-grab/

The WH is already urging dems to not vote to handicap the czars.

“Do not steal; The government Czars hate competition.”