Obama's Unconstitutional Czars! ... Alan Caruba

Obama’s Unconstitutional “Czars”

By Alan Caruba
***********************

Here’s a question that has been nagging me for months. Are Obama’s ever-growing number of “czars” constitutional? I am not a constitutional scholar, but I have read the document.

“Article II. Section 2. “He (the President) 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 consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein 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.”

As I read it, the Constitution is very specific about whom the President may appoint and he can do so only within parameters “established by law” and this applies specifically to the “heads of departments.” I interpret this to mean Cabinet Secretaries, all of whom must be vetted and approved for their positions by the Senate.

The Republican National Committee’s conservative caucus recently passed a resolution expressing their concern noting that “The U.S. Constitution explicitly states government officers with significant authority (called ‘principal officers’) must be nominated by the President and are subject to a vote of the U.S. Senate.”

Obama’s appointments are clearly “principal officers” though it will be argued that they are only advisors to the office of the President. Clearly, Obama’s appointments are not heads of departments, but they appear to have been granted an unknown degree of influence and control as regards their responsibilities. They function “in the dark.”

For example, since we have a Department of Labor why do we need an “Auto Recovery” czar, Ed Montgomery, who reports to Larry Summers, the President’s top economic advisor? What can he do to effect recovery? And, constitutionally speaking is it lawful for the United States to have “ownership” of General Motors? Or any other private enterprise? I think not.

Why does President Obama need a “Special Envoy for Climate Change”? Todd Stern reports to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but we have the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that includes the National Weather Service. What exactly does Stern do and why? Stern is best known for having helped negotiate the Kyoto climate pact which was based on the discredited claims of a global warming that is not happening. It was instantly rendered void by the exemption of nations such as China and India.

Meanwhile, the so-called energy and environment czar, Carol Browner, is reportedly coordinating policy in the same area as the “climate change” czar despite the fact that we have both a Department of Energy and an Environmental Protection Agency. Obama's choice for “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, is a Marxist radical.

I could go on, but the point, obviously, is that there is an enormous amount of overlap going on and it involves appointees who give the appearance of being doppelgangers to the existing Secretaries and the huge bureaucracies they oversee. They answer directly to the President, but presumably so do the Secretaries whom we occasionally see gathered around a huge table in cabinet meetings.

If these people who have not been approved by the Senate or occupy positions that have not been “established by law” and are not “heads of departments” exist solely at the pleasure of the President, are we not hip deep in some very muddy waters concerning who is answerable to the Senate or House committees?

I am of the belief that Obama has methodically gone about creating a shadow government of men and women with undefined powers, but who likely have even more influence with the Oval Office than those who hold office under the mandates of the Constitution.

To borrow a term from the White House, it all smells “fishy” to me in ways that go beyond just the provision of advice and which likely intrude deeply into the process by which laws and regulations are drafted and enacted.

There are now some thirty or more of these “czars” and they represent a threat to the authority of the Congress and could be utilized in some manufactured “crisis” to take control of the federal government, dispensing with the rule of law.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

© Alan Caruba, August 2009

*************************

Conservative+Internet+Obama+Constitution+Socialism+Czars

Obama to Acquire Control of the Internet?

Obama to Acquire Control of the Internet?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

**************************************


We warned this would happen many months ago. Yet, here we are today, and people are surprised by this blatant move to assert control over the Internet and, indirectly, over those who use it. That would be you and me!


CNET NEWS has an article by Declan McCullagh titled: “Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.” You will find the article HERE.


In his article Mr. McCullagh says: “Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.


They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors.” Mr. McCullagh goes on to say: “The new version would allow the president to "declare a Cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "Cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.”


In his article Mr. McCullagh says: “CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called Cybersecurity emergency.” You’ll find an excerpt from Senate Bill S. 773 HERE.


Looking closely at this bill one soon understands that it is a strong-arm tactic to take responsibility for Cybersecurity from Homeland Security and give it to the White House and Obama’s minions. (Or, should I say Obama’s Praetorian Guard?)


At the risk of upsetting some of you, I must say I have not witnessed such power grabbing since the Nazis seized control of Germany before the Second World War. Of particular concern is Senate Bill 778, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack. What we are looking at, dear reader, is being referred to by those who oppose it as drastic federal Intervention! I must say, I agree.


There is another article found HERE and titled: “A Bill to Shift Cybersecurity to White House.” To get an even better understanding of the control the White House will have over the Internet we recommend you read this article, as well.


My friend, Texas Fred, has an excellent article on this very thing over at his site. The title of his article is: “Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.” You’ll find it HERE.

The question is… how much control is enough control for Obama’s White House? Or, how much control is TOO much control for the American people? When do we say ENOUGH and say it loud and clear so that those barricaded inside the White House hear us and understand that they are treading on some very tender toes, indeed.


It is not just our toes the Obama Administration is treading on it is, in my opinion, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution they are treading on, as well. The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. When one reads the proposed new law, one has to ask if Obama is intending to suspend the Fourth Amendment?


Little by little, day-by-day, as the Obama Regime grows new tentacles, their mad grab for power and absolute control becomes more expansive. They are quickly gaining control over every facet of our daily lives. Privacy is a thing of the past in Obama’s America.

All of this leads me to ask: When will the backlash begin?? When will the American people say enough of Obama and his socialist utopia agenda?

It is an awesome thing when the American public rises up in righteous anger as much of the world can attest. The tar is being heated, the chickens are being plucked, and the rails are being split. Washington had best prepare for a tsunami of American anger to surge through its marble halls sweeping the rot of socialism before it into the gutter of American history where it rightfully belongs.


J. D. Longstreet
*************************
Conservative+Internet+Obama+Constitution+Socialism