This just in: the Constitution is optional

[GratefulCitizen]

US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...or-treaty.html

If the Senate's Constitutional authority to ratify treaties can be "temporarily" bypassed, does that mean that the president's authority as CinC can be "temporarily" bypassed as well?

This does not bode well considering some of the treaties coming from the united nations.

hat tip: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ly_declar.html

[Team Sergeant]

I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a taxpayer I want to know why my tax dollars are going to pay the salaries of "czars" and fund czar's "staff".

I'm thinking of a lawsuit:

Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government

Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.

Team Sergeant

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

The SOBOTUS has 36 Czars and counting. None are responsible to anyone but to the Obama. They're at the Proverbial "top on the Pyrimid" and answerable to a no nothing. Grief Charle Brown!!!

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a taxpayer I want to know why my tax dollars are going to pay the salaries of "czars" and fund czar's "staff".

I'm thinking of a lawsuit:

Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government

Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.

Team Sergeant

Glanced at the post before reading it.

"Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government" was prominent, so it was read first, and the idea of a lawsuit didn't immedieately occur.

The first thought that went through my head: my money would be on TS in that fight.

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant,
To few, to little, To late
SnT

[Richard]

I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution of the US of A - Article 2 - Section 2

...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.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ou...stitution.html

Richard's $.02

[pjg45]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I'm thinking of a lawsuit:

Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government

Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.

Team Sergeant

I can write the initial complaint. I didn't spend 2 years working in a large law firm for nothing!

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a taxpayer I want to know why my tax dollars are going to pay the salaries of "czars" and fund czar's "staff".

I'm thinking of a lawsuit:

Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government

Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.

Team Sergeant

TS,

I don't know how serious you are about this,but we do have a lot of lawyers on this forum who should give you some sound legal advise on it.................

Big Teddy

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

Team Sergeant,
To few, to little, To late
SnT

It seems to me that most trends in just about anything must go to extremes before balance is restored. Not just in markets, but in most areas of life.

We really haven't seen a crisis yet. The upcoming fiscal disaster in California gets worse by the day - and California is a big part of the U.S. economy. So when they come unraveled, lots of things may start following their lead. We'll then have a dangerous crisis to deal with...and if the administration is already willing to ignore the Constitution, their response is easy to guess.

Please forgive me for saying this - I mean no offense. And yet, I wonder if we should not read Solzhenitsyn to better see what faces us.

[Paslode]

I was watching Fox and Friends this morning and they were discussing the CZARS of which the number is like 38 and growing by the day. We even have a CZAR for the Great Lakes now.

Aside from that, what caught my attention was this.... apparently many of the CZAR positions parallel departments and heads of departments which already exist in the Federal Bureaucracy.....but the major difference is that the CZARS answer to 'O' and are not under the eye of the Oversight Committees.

That said, considering the the past 6 months of insanity, one could speculate that O & Co. are creating these parallel departments as a means of usurping the power of the Congress, the Senate and the various departments they oversee.

Just a thought

[Sigaba]

FWIW, political scientists have been discussing the 'fourth branch' of the federal government (the bureaucracy) for decades. Even those subject to the piercing gaze of congressional committees can wield great power through their use of administrative discretion.

Political opponents of the current president face at least two dilemmas when criticizing his growing reliance on "czars". First, without offering viable alternatives, the criticism will ring partisan to too many ears.

Second, without confronting the fact that Republican presidents have also set up mechanisms to bypass existing departments, critics may find themselves countered by brutal counter arguments from our recent past. Most notably, Vice President Cheney's intervention in the analysis of evidence of Iraq's WMD programs, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's numerous interventions in the promotions of general officers as well as the planning of COBRA II.

While one could argue that there's a distinction between vice president or a secretary of defense operating within a unique interpretation of his authority and a czar, will a broader audience agree that there's actually a difference?

MOO, to avoid these two pitfalls, I think criticism of the president's reliance on czars should focus on effectiveness and cost. This is to say, the question "Does this work?" will get more political traction than the question "Is this appropriate?"

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Aside from that, what caught my attention was this.... apparently many of the CZAR positions parallel departments and heads of departments which already exist in the Federal Bureaucracy.....but the major difference is that the CZARS answer to 'O' and are not under the eye of the Oversight Committees.

Which is why the Lawsuit is such a brilliant idea!!! And when TS wins, and of course he will win, (all the judge will need to see is TS on one side and the Gov't on the other, shaking in their boots from the mere sight of the Team Sergeant, and rap the gavel in His favor, case closed, game over, zip it up,) The CZARS will now be under His watchful piercing glare!

Great plan, please let me know if I may assist!

Holly

a .50 cal round is cheaper....

Benjamin Franklin stated there should be a revolution every one hundred years....

TG

[Soak60]

The Constitution is really a very, very flexible document as Richard pointed out. The social contract that it makes strongly assures the rights of a citizen, but because our society is based off majority representation with minority protection much of it is left to interpretation. Personally, I believe that when the POTUS has a czar of the Great Lakes, quietly exerting influence on things that should probably be left largely to the states....that's too much power.

One of the important parts of this is the balance of powers. With the way Congress is right now, I doubt we will see much outcry from that area over the way the "czar" thing is being interpreted.

So actually, the courts might be the way to go. At this point they look like the only recourse to a problem like this. In fact, wasn't this kind of the reason the Supreme Court was created?

And in regards to how these czars are being used...having that many is fairly ominous. In fact, that begins to sound like a leader surrounding himself with strongmen that have loyalty to no one but the aforementioned leader. I won't draw the parallels, but even if I thought BHO was an angel with the best of intentions...that sounds bad.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Soak60

The Constitution is really a very, very flexible document as Richard pointed out. The social contract that it makes strongly assures the rights of a citizen, but because our society is based off majority representation with minority protection much of it is left to interpretation. Personally, I believe that when the POTUS has a czar of the Great Lakes, quietly exerting influence on things that should probably be left largely to the states....that's too much power.

One of the important parts of this is the balance of powers. With the way Congress is right now, I doubt we will see much outcry from that area over the way the "czar" thing is being interpreted.

So actually, the courts might be the way to go. At this point they look like the only recourse to a problem like this. In fact, wasn't this kind of the reason the Supreme Court was created?

And in regards to how these czars are being used...having that many is fairly ominous. In fact, that begins to sound like a leader surrounding himself with strongmen that have loyalty to no one but the aforementioned leader. I won't draw the parallels, but even if I thought BHO was an angel with the best of intentions...that sounds bad.

My personal feeling is that some have made the Constitution a flexible document on a case by case basis through the use of legal mumbo jumbo by Lawyers.......just as when BHO said something to the extent of the Constitution stated what the Government limitations where, but it did state what the Government 'could' do for people.

My opinion on the manipulation of the Constitution by those whom think it is a flexible document is this non Constitutional example:

Western Auto sold riding lawn mowers, the lawn mowers came with a manual, in the manual it warned that accidental injury or death could occur if the if more than two parties were in the drivers seat while the mower was in operation. The manual warned not to ride on the mower deck while in operation. But the manual did not warn of the dangers associated with allowing a child to ride on the hood of the mower......so mower owner could presume that it was safe to ride in a box on the hood of a riding mower.

That was the legal premise of a lawsuit after a child in a box, while riding a top the hood of mower fell off and had their feet cut off. And Western Auto paid the Plaintiff.


Or how about your 16 and tell your parents you are going to stop at Quick Trip on the way to Joe's house. You are told no, you cannot stop at Quick Trip. So you drive to 7-11 instead. Why? Because your parents didn't specify you had to go directly to Joe's and that you could not stop at 7-11.


The Manual nor the Constitution is or was a flawed document, the flaw is in those that attempt to subvert and manipulate them.




As for the CZAR's.....Add in the O's National Defense Force with his CZAR's/CAPO's and you could have an intersting mix.