Video: Republican pushback on czars begins

posted at 11:36 am on September 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

After the resignation of Van Jones over his 9/11 Truther connections, Republicans feel energized to tackle what they see as the greatest abuse of power in the Obama administration: the proliferation of czars. Fittingly, it starts in the Senate, the legislative body Barack Obama has bypassed with his proliferation of unaccountable commissars in government. Yesterday, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) delivered a blistering attack on the apparatchiks of Obama’s government and the way it undermines the checks and balances in the system:

According to news accounts, there are 32 or 34 so-called czars in the Obama White House. Respected voices in the Senate—Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison, a senior Democrat and a senior Republican—have pointed out that these czars are an affront to the Constitution. They’re anti-democratic. They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country. They are a poor way to manage the government and they seem to me to be the principal symptom of this administrations eight-month record of too many Washington takeovers.

Sunday, Kay Bailey Hutchinson expanded on that argument in the Washington Post:

Nearly 250 years later, these critical lines of separation are being obscured by a new class of federal officials. A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as “czars.” They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a “car czar,” a “pay czar” and an “information czar.” There are also czars assigned to some of the broadest and most consequential topics in policy, including health care, terrorism, economics and key geographic regions.

So what do these czars do? Do they advise the president? Or do they impose the administration’s agenda on the heads of federal agencies and offices who have been vetted and confirmed by the Senate? Unfortunately — and in direct contravention of the Framers’ intentions — virtually no one can say with certainty what these individuals do or what limits are placed on their authority. We don’t know if they are influencing or implementing policy. We don’t know if they possess philosophical views or political affiliations that are inappropriate or overreaching in the context of their work.

This is precisely the kind of ambiguity the Framers sought to prevent. Article One tasks the legislative branch with establishing federal agencies, defining what they do, determining who leads them and overseeing their operations. Article Two requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate when appointing certain officials to posts of consequence. Thus, authority is shared between government branches, guaranteeing the American people transparency and accountability.

It’s well past time for the Republicans to demand answers on the massive expansion of “czars” in the government. A proper Congress would have balked at it regardless of the political parties involved. They represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the role of Congress as a check on executive power, and set a very dangerous precedent for subsequent administrations of both parties. Until now, Congress has jealously protected its Constitutional prerogatives, a task in which the current leadership in the Senate has utterly failed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

GOP finding its spine again? Good heavens!

promachus on September 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I think Glen Beck should address both houses of Congress

bluegrass on September 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Is he not man enough to be POTUS all by himself?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

But without the Czar Corps, Ogabe will have to make decisions himself and then be without the protection of an entire layer of blame-takers.

So shut up, the czars stay.

Bishop on September 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Lamar, is that you? *faints*

pannw on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Is there at least one Republican above the Mason-Dixon line?

Decider on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The worst president of the united states. that is his legacy. even worse then jimmy peanut head carter.

hawkman on September 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Eliz at 11:40:
He needs help because he is pushing his radical liberal transformation into every aspect of our society. That is a big job, but he and his czars are up to the challenge.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM

SOMEONE needs to sue now and be quick about it. This is one wrong that the democrat Congress won’t be able to simply ignore if someone files a proper well-thought out based in law and fact lawsuit. Yay Constitution!

Simona on September 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Is he not man enough to be POTUS all by himself?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Now – you KNOW the answer to that question.

poppieseeds on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

De-fund ACORN and the Czars!

Dasher on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

the greatest abuse of power in the Obama administration: the proliferation of czars

Really? Really?

Not the nationalization of car companies? Or taking over the boards of banks?

lorien1973 on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

It’s the conservatives in the GOP who gave them their spine.
Think, tea parties, protests, townhalls, million mob march.

…and to think the conservative movement was dead…. Those silly republicans politicians…

Between this and the ACORN vote… it’s nice to see that the PEOPLE really do run the country!!!

katy on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Gotta have someone to toss under the bus. So much easier to toss a czar under there vice a senate appointed cabinet member.

Jim708 on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Is he not man enough to be POTUS all by himself?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Part of his problem is that he can’t find enough of his cronies to pass through Senate confirmation. So he is way short on those appointments and has to fill the positions with his friends: Communists/racists/corruptocrats/tax cheats…oh wait/and America hating radicals.

Christian Conservative on September 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Was his ‘truther’ beliefs the only reason for Anthony Jones resignation?

red131 on September 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Is there at least one Republican above the Mason-Dixon line?

Decider on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Sarah!

Jim708 on September 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Is he not man enough to be POTUS all by himself?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

HEY! He is a busy guy! Those Air Force One Manhatten flyovers and dates nights and twice daily workouts don’t just get done on their own you know. And besides, isn’t enough for him to “act” like the president? Does he actually have to “be” the president? Sheesh.

anniekc on September 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Simple answer: Obama isn’t man enough, his teleprompter told him so!

nwsseeker on September 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM

I think Glen Beck should address both houses of Congress

bluegrass on September 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Amen!

The republicans need to show some backbone and fight back. These czars are such an atrocity and a mockery of our constitution.

cubachi on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Czars should be written out of existence. Neither Republican nor Democrat Presidents should be able to appoint powerful officials who can override Senate-appointed department heads.

hawksruleva on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM

And while Obama is crowning all these czars, his has yet to fill half of his cabinet appointments.

Socratease on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Jim708 on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Grrrrr, approved, not appointed.

Jim708 on September 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM

The two largest GANGS in America,the republicans and democratic parties.

easyone on September 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM

De-fund ACORN and the Czars!

Dasher on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

And Congress.

nwsseeker on September 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Socratease on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM

It’s the left’s way of abolishing the Constitution and instituting a centralized government.

red131 on September 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Amazing what one person with a tv/radio show can do to prod shame our do nothing, don’t care, corrupt, special interest coddling politicians into doing….

PatriotRider on September 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Nice talk, Repubs. Now, how about some action?

All this yakety-yak from Alexander and Hutchinson is nice as far as it goes, which is nowhere.

Let’s see someone actively challenge Osama Obama on at least one of his unconstitutional acts of arrogance and make it stick.

MrScribbler on September 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I continue to pray for Beck’s safety and his continued challenges to what is going on in this country.

red131 on September 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Until now, Congress has jealously protected its Constitutional prerogatives, a task in which the current leadership in the Senate has utterly failed.

Reid is too busy trying to help Barack Obama destroy this country to do anything constructive like that.

smellthecoffee on September 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Do they have the balls to shut down the Senate until they get answers?

tarpon on September 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I know why BARACK OBAMA wants his radical Czars, but I would like to start a “Not up to the Challenge” Meme using the Czars.

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM

bluegrass on September 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Amen. If it was not for Glenn this may never have come to light.

milwife88 on September 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM

But then more people would find out about all the liberal wacko’s he’s putting in charge of various parts of our nation….

gwelf on September 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Barack Obama + 32 still can’t get the job done.

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM

tarpon on September 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM
They could start by having every bill read into the Congressional record; page by page – word for word.

red131 on September 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM

My emails yesterday to my senators said this:
1. Please stop funding ACORN.
2. Please investigate the czars.

It only took me a minute or two. I beg you to do the same. It helps me feel less helpless against this juggernaut. Try it!

doctormom on September 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM

It’s well past time for the Republicans to demand answers on the massive expansion of “czars” in the government.

Sure they should///

How many of them voted to confirm Cass Sunstein? More doublespeak from the Repub’s.

Time to throw them all out. TERM LIMITS!!!!

Knucklehead on September 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM

A proper Congress would have balked at it regardless of the political parties involved.

Absolutely! It is time for both parties in Congress to get their acts together and do their job of protecting the Constitution.

truetexan on September 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM

My emails yesterday to my senators said this:
1. Please stop funding ACORN.
2. Please investigate the czars.

It only took me a minute or two. I beg you to do the same. It helps me feel less helpless against this juggernaut. Try it!

doctormom on September 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM

copying and pasting now.

truetexan on September 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

I think Glen Beck should address both houses of Congress

bluegrass on September 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Seriously… do you have to ask?

Chaz706 on September 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Hutch. can’t figure out which side to be on.Didn’t she vote NAY on the acorn thingy?

ohiobabe on September 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Community Organizers
Zapping
American
Resources
Strategy

Rovin on September 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I think Glen Beck should address both houses of Congress

bluegrass on September 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM

He does, every day………

PatriotRider on September 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM

It’s when good men stand silent that causes most of the problems in the world.

tarpon on September 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Too little, too late.

joshlbetts on September 15, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Wasn’t Obama the guy that needed 300 economic advisors during his campaign? Maybe he’s going for 300 czars.

starboardhelm on September 15, 2009 at 11:59 AM

You need the czars -apparatchiks, commissars, informants- for after, when you have firm control of all retirement/wealth management through SSA and control of all major investment banks (the Fed doesn’t have to be ‘vested’- just controlling executive reimbursement, which will always be confidential). You need the “czars” after you have control of all aspects of “Health Care” -control there comes not so much through the rationing, but rather through the bureaucrats who have your family’s history of mental illness, STD’s, inconvenient pregnancies, physical abuse etc..
Yes, and CO2 is a greenhaouse pollutant… okay, class, what comes next? Anyone…?

Doorgunner on September 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Demand resignations from the Czars, the Obama administration and all of Congress. Start from scratch. Heck, pick some bag ladies off the street to fill the positions until we can hold special elections.

Daggett on September 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM

What I find interesting is that as predicted (not by me but others) as soon as O’s numbers started off a cliff, the critics seem to have found a voice. I wonder what this means for Obama’s legislative plans? I further wonder if there’s a point where his numbers negate passage of any of the rest of his stuff? Mid/low 40′s?

volnation on September 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Genuine question: from where is czar authority supposedly derived?

“Because BO said so” shouldn’t cut it.

anglee99 on September 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Czars should be written out of existence. Neither Republican nor Democrat Presidents should be able to appoint powerful officials who can override Senate-appointed department heads.

hawksruleva on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Whats interesting in all this is how the Constitution is being blatantly ignored.

The Senate gets to vote on ALL Presidential appointees, UNLESS there is a specific law saying that they don’t have to…

In various laws for Deptarments, they picked and chose those “positions”…ie which ones they had to vote on, and which ones they did not…

But the Czars, as far as I can tell, are covered by no law… are they slipping them in as “Presidential Advisers”?

Romeo13 on September 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM

“Because BO said so” shouldn’t cut it.

That sounds about right.

volnation on September 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Redneck,racist out sitting on their lawn in DC seems to have caught a few ears.Maybe the FOLKS need to show up more often.
2010 and counting.

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM

What I find interesting is that as predicted (not by me but others) as soon as O’s numbers started off a cliff, the critics seem to have found a voice.

Well, naturally. When you’re the only one, the libs make you look like a racist. When enough people complain, you can brush off the false charges of racism.

Daggett on September 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM

And yes, it is time to amend our constitution:

1) Term limits for every elected Federal office-holder.

2) Sunset provisions for every piece of Federal legislaiton.

Doorgunner on September 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Socratease on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Does this show that those positions are not needed? Maybe we could save some tax money there.

PappaMac on September 15, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Obama’s jugular is exposed, time to close the door. He could be a lame duck by Christmas.

echosyst on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM

FYI
The Constitution is quite specific, in that Senate confirmation is required of all Presidential appointees. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 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.

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM

OT:

Arlen Specter just got the kiss of death here in PA. Obama will be speaking on his behalf at the Philadelphia Convention Center this afternoon.

We just won folks. Obama supports Specter, not Joe Sestak.

Add one senate seat for the Republicans in 2010.

….. now back to your regularly scheduled program.

fogw on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Is he not man enough to be POTUS all by himself?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I believe he also has over 35 attorneys on his staff, some paid some not paid, but over 30 attorneys.
I believe Bush had 6 or 7, as did Clinton.

right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Is there at least one Republican above the Mason-Dixon line?

Decider on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Voinovich (Ohio). Not much, I admit, but he should be replaced by Rob Portman.

On another note, the Ohio Board of Education (or whatever it’s called) recently decided to phase out school credit for Junior ROTC in Ohio high schools. My dad’s a retired U.S. Navy captain, and he’s p*ssed. He was contacted several weeks ago about being inducted in Ohio’s Hall of Fame for military vets. He’s likely to decline the honor in protest and to tell Democratic Governor Strickland exactly where Strickland can stick the honor when he sees him soon to review U.S. Naval Academy candidates from Ohio.

Sweet.

BuckeyeSam on September 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM

They represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the role of Congress as a check on executive power…

Yes, it has been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution and a crime against the Republic. Very similar to what Beck and Breitbart said this morning.

petefrt on September 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM

How many of them voted to confirm Cass Sunstein? More doublespeak from the Repub’s.

Time to throw them all out. TERM LIMITS!!!!

Knucklehead on September 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Agreed. The Repub’s didn’t even put up much of a fight on Sunstein. I called and sent emails to Cornyn’s office when he withdrew his hold. BTW Lots of term limit signs in D.C. Sat.

HoustonRight on September 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The czars are an obvious crutch for “O” he can’t do the job and needs these people to do his job! Take them away and there will be true meaning to an “Empty Suit”

xler8bmw on September 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM

We just won folks. Obama supports Specter, not Joe Sestak.

Add one senate seat for the Republicans in 2010.

fogw on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM

My view too. Sestak would have been the much stronger candidate.

petefrt on September 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM

In a bold declaration that they have absolutely nothing to contribute to the dabates over energy, the economy, national security or health care, the Republican Party today embraced an utterly phony issues with the intention of mobilizing psychitic wing of their base, estimated by Michelle Malkin to be 2.4 billion people, half of whom marched on Washington last weekend.

Bleeds Blue on September 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM

I have the perfect solution for Giggles’ czar problem. Obviously he needs a…

CZAR CZAR

crazy_legs on September 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Obama is just doing the only thing he knows…community organizing. And yes, we do know what these czars are up too, re: Van Jones, trying to overthrow our Constitution so they can implement their radical left Marxism.

Told you so last year, as did many others, did America listen? Noooo, had to feeeel gooood about electing hope’n'changy.

kirkill on September 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM

The POTUS also, in the event of an emergency, the power to put state national guards under his command. The definition of what is and is not an emergency is not clear and grant POTUS just a little too much power IMO.

Theworldisnotenough on September 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM

This demonstrates the Democrat agenda perfectly; Sneak in anything possible and keep it hidden from the People, whom the governing is supposed to be FOR. It shows the contempt they, and their media have, for the Constitution, and the people.
This Congress is overflowing with criminals, and needs to be cleaned up quick.

Cybergeezer on September 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM

….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.

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM

I thought the same thing, but by calling them Inferior Officers, he can skip confirmation.

In Louisiana our State Constitution makes Gambling illegal. But we simply call it Gaming and it is OK, Wink Wink Nod Nod.

barnone on September 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM

the proliferation of czars commissars

Fixed

agmartin on September 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM

. BTW Lots of term limit signs in D.C. Sat.

HoustonRight on September 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM

And one of those signs was mine, along with “Throw the Bums Out” on the other side.

Good Times.

Knucklehead on September 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM

But the Czars, as far as I can tell, are covered by no law… are they slipping them in as “Presidential Advisers”?

Romeo13 on September 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Actually Czars are permitted, it is just in the past they have been senate approved, like the drug czar.
This just happens to be the first time that a president has circumvented the senate.
And a few have been “ad hoc” (Donald Powell after Katrina) for just a short period of time until an official office had been created by the senate.

right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Isn’t there a bill already to defund the czars pending proper Congressional review? If not, there should be.

petefrt on September 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Bleeds Blue on September 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Hey, did anyone hear that sheep bleating?

kirkill on September 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Until now, Congress has jealously protected its Constitutional prerogatives, a task in which the current leadership in the Senate has utterly failed.

Not true.

Congress has allowed the SCOTUS to push them around. They even allowed them to order congress to fund forced busing.

Translation: Congress wanted forced busing but wanted to hide behind the SCOTUS even more. Had the court ordered them to

The Rock on September 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM

And yes, it is time to amend our constitution:

1) Term limits for every elected Federal office-holder.

2) Sunset provisions for every piece of Federal legislaiton.

Doorgunner on September 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM

a few suggestions:

3) Remove ‘universal consent’ from the parliamentary rules of both the house and senate. (all bills now have to be read aloud).

4) Bills cannot tackle any subject of the law short of the one listed in the title.

5) No spending increases while there’s a deficit. No spending increases if said increases would result in a deficit.

6) A Taxpayer’s bill of rights for the federal government shall now be enforced (wikipedia/bing: TABOR).

Chaz706 on September 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM

“They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country.”

Excellent statement. I suggest a t-shirt with pictures of all the czars with TRANSPARENCY? stamped across it.

Mr_Magoo on September 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I thought the same thing, but by calling them Inferior Officers, he can skip confirmation.

In Louisiana our State Constitution makes Gambling illegal. But we simply call it Gaming and it is OK, Wink Wink Nod Nod.

barnone on September 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM

No, they only bypass Senate vetting if a LAW says they do not have to be vet’d… there has to be statuatory cover.

Romeo13 on September 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

It rather obvious that Obama needs to appoint a CONGRESS CZAR. That’ll keep those idiots in line

GarandFan on September 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Knucklehead on September 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM

So I saw you and didn’t know it. I feel cheated!

HoustonRight on September 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Bush had Czars, Clinton had Czars…didn’t Reagan even have them?

I really don’t think that Congress can do much about the Czars without looking like hypocrites, until and unless the impetus comes from the people and the media.

I’m not sure that impetus exists yet. This doesn’t appear to cause the same angst as the over growth of government, and general move towards socialism.

Once the impetus is there, Congress needs to notify this White House and future White Houses that the era of the Czar is over, that any future “Czars” must report to someone in the Cabinet or be elevated to Cabinet-level positions themselves, with all the typical vetting required.

Chris of Rights on September 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM

They aren’t really czars, they are the Whitehouse ENTOURAGE

/sarc

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on September 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM

right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM

I guess I was not clear…

The Senate must confirm UNLESS there is a law saying they don’t need confirmation.

Never said they were not allowed… just wondering under what statuatory authority Obama was trying to appoint these folks… and how they were getting PAID.

Romeo13 on September 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM

And yes, it is time to amend our constitution:

1) Term limits for every elected Federal office-holder.

2) Sunset provisions for every piece of Federal legislaiton.

Doorgunner on September 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM

a few suggestions:

3) Remove ‘universal consent’ from the parliamentary rules of both the house and senate. (all bills now have to be read aloud).

4) Bills cannot tackle any subject of the law short of the one listed in the title.

5) No spending increases while there’s a deficit. No spending increases if said increases would result in a deficit.

6) A Taxpayer’s bill of rights for the federal government shall now be enforced (wikipedia/bing: TABOR).

Chaz706 on September 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM

7) All bills must cite article/section/clause of the constitution from which they derive their authority.

Fighton03 on September 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Why does Barack Obama need so much more help than every other president?

Is he not man enough to be POTUS all by himself?

Elizabetty on September 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Hey he answered like, eight questions, isn’t that enough?

Oh, and he reads the words they put in front of him too.

It is a tough job, really. State Senator was so much easier.

18-1 on September 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Decider on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Pardon me ma’am, but there’s a troll void on the ACORN child sex slave facilitator thread. Why don’t you go over there? You’d have it all to yourself, troll-wise.

Akzed on September 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Obama’s cabinet appointments were just decoys and distractions from his real loci of power. By superimposing his czars over his department heads, Obama has erected a shadow government of people he knew were too radical for the Senate ever to approve. It was deliberate circumvention of the Constitutional requirement for Senate oversight and a direct assault on its system of checks and balances, in order to re-make America into the antithesis of itself. If this isn’t impeachable, then what it?

petefrt on September 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

it is

petefrt on September 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

And yes, it is time to amend our constitution:

1) Term limits for every elected Federal office-holder.

2) Sunset provisions for every piece of Federal legislaiton.

Doorgunner on September 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM

a few suggestions:

3) Remove ‘universal consent’ from the parliamentary rules of both the house and senate. (all bills now have to be read aloud).

4) Bills cannot tackle any subject of the law short of the one listed in the title.

5) No spending increases while there’s a deficit. No spending increases if said increases would result in a deficit.

6) A Taxpayer’s bill of rights for the federal government shall now be enforced (wikipedia/bing: TABOR).

Chaz706 on September 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM
7) All bills must cite article/section/clause of the constitution from which they derive their authority.

Fighton03 on September 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

8. All laws must be written in standard English, so a normal person can understand them. If it cites a section of another law which it is changing, it MUST QUOTE the section in question.

Romeo13 on September 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

these toolbags need to walk a few miles on broken glass, on their knees of course, in order to get back some shred of credibility. Start producing some results–ie, heads on pikes, and we’ll start listening again. Until that day, keep talkin….yeppers, keeep talkin…

ted c on September 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I’m strongly in favor of a few Constitutional Amendments:

Term Limits:
US House – 12 years
US Senate – 18 years
Federal Judges – 20 years (Includes Supreme Court)

Line Item Veto

Balanced Budget

Did I miss something??

ny59giants on September 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Time to throw them all out. TERM LIMITS!!!!

Knucklehead on September 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Term limits would not be needed if we did the following:
1. Eliminate congressional perks. (retirement plans, ect.)
2. Make congress live by the same laws under which U.S. citizens live . ( Healthcare, ect. )
3. Congressional pay raises must be voted on by citizens.
4. Congress must read any bill on which it votes .
5. Eliminate add-ons. ( earmarks )

Johan Klaus on September 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Did I miss something?? ny59giants on September 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Yes. Must be able to produce a valid birth certificate.

Akzed on September 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM

“They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country.”

Excellent statement. I suggest a t-shirt with pictures of all the czars with TRANSPARENCY? stamped across it.

Mr_Magoo on September 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I like it, but the sheep that vote for Democrats are too stupid to understand the irony.

kirkill on September 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

The only position left in CrockObama’s crew:

dthorny on September 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The only position left in CrockObama’s crew:

dthorny on September 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfJe8hQ8ha0

with the link.

dthorny on September 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2