Senator Feingold: Here Comes the Obama Czar Whitewash
Posted in Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, disclosure, ethics, obama, Feingold, Congress on October 7th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews 
In just the first paragraph of the following statement by Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) on the issue of President Obama’s ‘czar’ policy the expectation of proper adherence to the US Constitution in this matter and others is diminished. If the Senator has ‘no objection’ to those serving or the ‘issues they are addressing’ does that indicate the subcommittee will rubber stamp Obama’s current power grab trends?
Feingold made sure he mentioned climate change and healthcare in support of the President’s agenda as well as his support of czars given his timid response to the situation in the opening remarks. His second paragraph indicates more of the same. Is this to calm the opposition yet be polite and state you can understand how they could become this misguided and confused over federal government power grabs?
The third paragraph may be a smoke screen as well as one more direction of blame toward President George W. Bush. Well, there could be a constitutional question but then the liberal Senator from Wisconsin could merely be setting up a whitewash of the whole matter for the Obamanation.
Feel free to find more reasons to be concerned about Senator Feingold’s curious pursuit of truth, justice and the American way in his statement below.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
As Prepared for Delivery
“I think it is fair to acknowledge that there has been a lot of discussion about the Obama administration’s appointment of so-called czars to various positions in the White House and other departments or agencies. I called this hearing today because I think this is a serious issue that deserves serious study. But I want to be clear that I have no objection either to the people serving as advisors to the president, or to the policy issues they are addressing. These are some very talented people working on some very important issues that this administration absolutely should be addressing, from climate change to health care. I hope that this hearing will enable us to get beyond some of the rhetoric out there and have an informed, reasoned, thoughtful discussion about the constitutional issues surrounding the president’s appointment of certain executive branch officials.
“I should note that while the term ‘czar’ has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed. I assume they have done so to show the seriousness of their effort to address a problem and their expectations of those they have asked to solve it. But historically, a czar is an autocrat, and it’s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government.
“While there is a long history of the use of White House advisors and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate. It is important to understand the history for context, but often constitutional problems creep up slowly. It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘well, George Bush did it too.’
“Determining whether these czars are legitimate or whether they will thwart congressional oversight requires analysis of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and a discussion of some complicated constitutional and administrative law principles. I am therefore very pleased that we have such an accomplished group of witnesses who can help us determine whether there is a basis for concern here or not, and if so, what are possible remedies that Congress ought to consider. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Coburn, for helping to put together this distinguished panel.
“I think it is helpful to break down the officials whose legitimacy has been questioned into three categories to better understand the potential legal issues. The first group are positions that I have no concerns about, and frankly, no one else should either. These positions were created by statute and are subject to advice and consent from the Senate. For example, some have called Dennis Blair the Intelligence Czar. But he is the Director of National Intelligence, a position created by Congress based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Like his predecessors Mike McConnell and John Negroponte, he was confirmed by the Senate. Calling him a ‘czar’ does not make him illegitimate or extra-constitutional. There are roughly nine officials that fall into this category, yet have appeared on some lists of czars. Any serious discussion of this issue has to conclude that there is no problem with these posts.
“The second category of positions also does not appear to be problematic, at least on its face. These are positions that report to a Senate confirmed officer, for example, a Cabinet Secretary. All of these positions are housed outside of the White House and all of these officials’ responsibilities are determined by a superior who Congress has given the power to prescribe duties for underlings. I will leave it to our distinguished constitutional law experts to further discuss this category, but as I understand it, these officials are likely to be considered ‘inferior officers’ under the Appointments Clause, and therefore they are not automatically required to be subject to advice and consent of the Senate. Most of these positions are also housed within parts of the government that are subject to open records laws like the Freedom of Information Act, and many of them have already appeared to testify before Congress. Indeed, of the 32 czars on a prominent media list, 16 have testified this year and two others are in positions where their predecessors under President Bush or Clinton testified. There does not appear to be a constitutional problem with these positions in theory, although it is possible people could identify one in practice, if for example, some of these people were determined to be taking away authority or responsibility from a Senate-confirmed position. However, I do not have any reason at this point to believe that to be the case.
“I am most interested in the third category of positions, and I think we are talking about fewer than 10 people, in part because we know the least about these positions. These officials are housed within the White House itself. Three weeks ago, I wrote to the President and requested more information about these positions, such as the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform and the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The response to that letter finally came yesterday, and I will put the response in the record and plan to question our witnesses about it.
“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today. That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the Executive Branch.
“The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars’ on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don’t think that’s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?
“No one disputes that the president is allowed to hire advisors and aides. In fact, the president is entitled, by statute, to have as many as fifty high-level employees working for him and making top salaries. But Congress and the American people have the right to ensure that the positions in our government that have been delegated legal authority are also the positions that are exercising that authority. If – and I am not saying this is the case — individuals in the White House are exercising legal authority or binding the executive branch without having been given that power by Congress, that’s a problem. And Congress also has the right to verify that any directives given by a White House czar to a Cabinet member are directly authorized by the president.”
We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.
67 senators voted AGAINST doing exactly that. Ya, we know, you think it is political. Perhaps the smart ones in the senate can read the tea leaves of the current Congressional approval rating that is in the tank. Perhaps, not unlike this blog who contacted them on another issue, immigration, they are beginning to listen to citizens rather than special interest and doing the right thing. Win in Iraq. We Win, They Lose. End illegal immigration and thoughts of amnesty.
It may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq.
Another glance at a list of most popular news stories indicates the story of the two “abducted” boys has moved into first place since yesterday. In second place is a strange combo-looking thing featuring Hollywood divorces, Trump and Rosie and assorted other useless information. Third place has electronics standards and the BS electronics show hording space it doesn’t deserve. As a 
There are no other stories in the list worth mentioning with the possible exception of one on Secretary of State, Rice. The headline reads” Rice Encounters Skepticism in Mideast”. That is offered only for its comedic value. Maybe if the U.S. would put Israel in its place, show some compassion for the ordinary citizens of Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East and warn every nation in the region to make an effort at peace, we might have something. Show them you’re serious by completing what you started in Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly. Straighten out some of the messes you’ve gotten us into and start acting like world leaders and maybe some one will take you seriously. If you get that far you can tell Iran and North Korea or any one else spoiling for a fight to straighten up or their situation will change abruptly. Do what you need to provide a little lasting peace and prosperity in the region and then take a break and bring the troops home. It can be done so quit wasting time and get at it. Tell the morons back in the states to stop debating foreign policy and military strategy in the news and get to work also. This country could use some leadership. Let’s start with what we have and stop playing politics. For once, finish the job and stop looking like the idiots you probably are.
