(Senator) Byrd gives Obama heat over 'Czars'

[sabra]

Source: CNN

(CNN) — One day after his address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama is taking heat from the most senior Democratic senator over the recent appointments of a handful of White House "czars."

Robert Byrd, the Senate pro tempore from West Virginia, said in a letter to the president he is concerned the appointments of new so called 'czars' in the offices of health, urban affairs and climate change are not subject to Senate approval and could therefore shield information from congress under the right of executive privilege.

"Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process," Byrd wrote in the letter.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president," he continued. "In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/25/byrd-gives-obama-heat-over-czars/

[Gormy Cuss]

1. Byrd's right. It's time for this "Czar" crap to stop.

[AngryAmish]

4. agreed

Maybe they need a czar of czars to supervise the czars.

And why don't they go by their real name, Ceasar?

[scytherius]

6. Respectfully disagree

This Congress couldn't even oversee Bush White House. They were utterly anemic. I wouldn't trust them to oversee a bubble pipe. I don't like the Czar thing either but I'm done with trusting Congress to do pretty much anything that is in our best interest.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. That may be true but the Czar nonsense is shifting the perception to these being executive branch

functions rather than holding the feet of Congress members to the fire and REQUIRING that they do their constitutional duty in addressing the same issues. If we make Congress's job easier maybe we should formalize that shift with a constitutional amendment. We should also pay them less.

[EFerrari]

22. Yep. n/t

[tularetom]

2. Did he ever bitch about kkkarl rove, WH "czar" of everyfuckinthing?

I realize he's a thousand years old. Maybe he needs to pack it in.

[sutz12]

5. Actually, he did...

He's been an advocate of reining in executive power for a while.

I consider this a valid concern, even for a Democratic President. Obama needs to precisely define what these guys' jobs and levels of responsibility are.

[biopowertoday]

8. yes, and it is a very valid concern.

[tularetom]

12. Well Byrd is the only one still around who remembers when there were real czars

So maybe he has a point.

[bluestateguy]

3. Oh please

Yeah Bobby, that's just what we need, more power and authority for the paper pushing blowhards in the Senate who can't ever seem to get anything done.

[bertman]

7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this "executive privilege right" just another made-up

legal roadblock perpetrated upon a cowardly Congress by BushCo? Surely President Clinton would have used it to shield himself during the famous Blow-Job Inquisition by Congressional Puritans, I mean Republicans back in the day--if it had been a legitimate use of executive power. Or was Bill just too afraid of the Reich-wingers to invoke executive privilege for something as potentially dangerous to the republic as a White House hummer?

My impression is that the Congress either allows or disallows executive privilege by its acquiescence or its refusal to acquiesce.

[sutz12]

14. You're wrong...

It goes back at least to Truman IIRC. I know it was big with Nixon in his little dustup and yes, The Big Dog used it, too. Bush has expanded it exponentially, or has tried to, but he didn't start it.

In many ways, the Executive Privelege question has been ongoing for many years.

[bertman]

15. That's my point, sutz12. It's exactly that: a question. It seems that a strong Congress

can get around it when a weak one cannot.

But maybe it boils down to a showdown at the Supreme Court Corral.

[biopowertoday]

9. Thank you Sen. Byrd.

[apnu]

23. Where the hell was this under the Bush admin?

Just curious.

Seems to me the Dems have great principles and willpower when confronting other Dems.


:sarcasm:

[happygoluckytoyou]

11. RIGHT ON!!! no more czars... we need some...despots and kings, but enuf of the czars....

didn't russia "lose"....

[No Elephants]

13. Byrd's correct. We've had enough unitary executive and executive privilege. Our Constitution

contemplates three co-equal branches of government.

[marshall]

16. Byrd is really going out on a limb here

I guess he has no reputation to protect--or at least no future plans since he's on the cusp of the horizon. He can speak his mind.

[Seeking Serenity]

17. Byrd gives Obama heat over 'Czars'

Obama: I think Peter the Great was the best czar. He brought Russia into the modern age, up to that point.

Byrd: Are you nuts? It was Alexander II. He freed the serfs.

Obama: Peter the Great!

Byrd: Alexander II!

:rofl:

[jody]

18. Byrd is 100% correct. n/t

[Lost in CT]

19. Byrd is on target with this one for a multitude of reasons.

Not the least of which is a Republic simply shouldn't have Czars to begin with.

[SoxFan]

20. Grumpy Old Man

Byrd is afraid that Obama might send federal dollars somewhere besides West By God Virginia.

[alarimer]

21. I agree.

It's ridiculous.

[blueclown]

24. Byrd is 100% correct.

It is a shame that he is getting criticized by some so-called "progressives" for saying this, because it is the same thing he was saying about * the past 8 years.