Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - obama Czars (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24174)

More Executive Authority, overriding constitution

All documents/articles are linked below. Only most relevant quotes are shown here. There are several issues at play, but I feel that the most important is the neglect of the distribution of power.

Quote:

Clinton declares the US 'is back' in Asia
Robert Burns (AP) 07/21/2009

Clinton says she would, as previously announced, sign ASEAN's seminal Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, a commitment to peacefully resolve regional disputes that has already been signed by more than a dozen countries outside the 10-nation bloc.

The U.S. signing will be by the executive authority of Obama and does not require congressional ratification, said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the move publicly.

emphasis added

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...JShdgD99J77V80

Quote:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2
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.

emphasis added

What will this treaty do?

Quote:

ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in SE Asia, Bali, 24 February 1976
Article 2

In their relations with one another, the High Contracting Parties shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :

a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;

b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;

c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;

e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;

f. [B[Effective cooperation among themselves. [/B]

Quote:

Article 13
The High Contracting Parties shall have the determination and good faith to prevent disputes from arising. In case disputes on matters directly affecting them should arise, especially disputes likely to disturb regional peace and harmony, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force and shall at all times settle such disputes among themselves through friendly negotiations.

emphasis added
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm

ASEAN member countries:

Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam

source here

I really hope I just misinterpreted something here, because it looks to me like the US is about to sign an agreement saying we can't use "interference, subversion, or coercion" towards repressive regimes in the region (particularly Burma), or "the threat or use of force" against any of the ASEAN member countries should an international incident arise. All without congressional approval. Riding on the wave of "Executive Authority".

-out

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis (Post 274779)

I'm curious how you arrived at a speculated salary level of $3 to $5 million? When U.S. Senators make around $169,000 annually, it's quite a stretch to get to these amounts. I imagine if they were getting annual compensation even in the million dollar ballpark, there would be such an outcry from the senate and congress. I mean after all, they are the ones who are supposed to be getting rich from our taxes, not some johnny-come-lately czars.

If it's true, then congressmen and the senators are being underpaid, a problem they will remedy immediately, before any breaks, holidays, etc. They will not let minor issues like unemployment and a woeful economy stand in the way of doing what is right! Maybe we need a czar to quantify the amount by which our government leaders are underpaid. We can call him or her the Wonderland czar. The debate and analysis on the size of the warrented raises( and grandfathered back pay) will be so transparent, we will not even be able to see it.

Even though it's not related to the above, I cannot let another day pass without the following observation : Obama throws like a friggin girl(apologies to all girls on this board).

I don't know anything for a fact. But since there are over 30 Czars named so far and maybe assume they make at least $100K or better yet use the $170K figure that a Senators make, would be over $5 million. Plus staff and expenses. Hope I didn't imply that they were knocking down 7 figures each. They will have to wait for the lecture tour to get that or when they write a book detailing their time in the White House that destroyed the country. I'd assume a Czar would make as much as a Senator or more. Honestly, I don't know! They didn't have Czars when I took Civics classes in college. Curious if any of this information has been released in the new era of transparency:)

Quote:

More Executive Authority, overriding constitution

Sounds more like an MOUA than any new treaty - a reaffirmation of the principles we agreed to and signed in previous treaties - e.g., creating the UN and SEATO (which disbanded in 1977) - while snookering a few not so nice governments into agreeing to those same principles - which OBTW can be used against them in the arena of international opinion but aren't worth the paper they're written upon if our national security is threatened.

And the article doesn't say whether or not the administration conferred with representatives of Congress, or mention that Congress can choose to not ratify any treaty if they so desire - which is what happened to President Wilson and the League of Nations.

IMO, the overriding idea is not so clear from what's been reported and may be a bit of a reach at this point in the process. YMMV ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

They didn't have Czars when I took Civics classes in college. Curious if any of this information has been released in the new era of transparency.

Don't know when you went to college - but they have had such Czars in the Executive Office of the POTUS since FDR with the passing of Reorganization Plan 1 of 1939 and under Executive Order 8248 - they just didn't call them that until more recently. Guess your professor didn't cover that section of the book. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 274920)

I stand corrected. Richard, this site certainly benefits from your input. No doubt about it. When I get bogged down in my studies, I always remind myself what you had to do in Europe (Germany?) to earn your Masters. So what were they called in FDR's time? If they were not called Czars, was Clinton the first to use the title? Regardless, thanks for responding. Believe it has been since Feb since I've had any time to see how you folks are responding to what is going on in Washington.

Just now seeing Obama answering questions after speech. Did anyone see Obama take issue with the Harvard college professor getting arrested in Cambridge at the end of the Q & A? He took issue with why the professor got arrested after it was clear he was in fact the owner. Amazing he didn't mention the fact the idiot was running his mouth to an officer. Typical liberal point of view! All emotion while avoiding the facts.

Quote:

So what were they called in FDR's time? If they were not called Czars, was Clinton the first to use the title?

Directors - the first use of the term Czar came from Senator Biden in reference to GEN (Ret) Barry McCaffrey's becoming the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy - the Drug Czar.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

In a letter to the President, Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, questions the number of "czars" within the Executive Office. In the letter, Senator Collins expresses concern that the growing number of czars may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress. The letter was also signed by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Bob Bennett (R-UT).

Quote:

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our growing concern with the proliferation of "czars" in your Administration. These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of "czars," particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent," greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions.

To be clear, we do not consider every position identified in various reports as a "czar" to be problematic. Positions established by law or subject to Senate confirmation, such as the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, do not raise the same kinds of concerns as positions that you have established within the Executive Office of the President that are largely insulated from effective Congressional oversight. We also recognize that Presidents are entitled to surround themselves with experts who can serve as senior advisors.

Many "czars" you have appointed, however, either duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress has conferred upon Cabinet-level officers and other senior Executive branch officials. When established within the White House, these "czars" can hinder the ability of Congress to oversee the complex substantive issues that you have unilaterally entrusted to their leadership. Whether in the White House or elsewhere, the authorities of these advisors are essentially undefined. They are not subject to the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role, including the Senate's careful review of the character and qualifications of the individuals nominated by the President to fill the most senior positions within our government. Indeed, many of these new "czars" appear to occupy positions of greater responsibility and authority than many of the officials who have been confirmed by the Senate to fill positions within your Administration.

With these concerns in mind, we have identified at least 18 "czar" positions created by your Administration whose reported responsibilities may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress or express statutory assignments of responsibility to other Executive branch officials. With regard to each of these positions, we ask that you explain:

• the specific authorities and responsibilities of the position, including any limitations you have placed on the position to ensure that it does not encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibilities of other Executive branch officials;

• the process by which the Administration examines the character and qualifications of the individuals appointed by the President to fill the position; and,

• whether the individual occupying the position will agree to any reasonable request to appear before, or provide information to, Congress.

We also urge you to refrain from creating similar additional positions or making appointments to any vacant "czar" positions until you have fully consulted with the appropriate Congressional committees.

Finally, we ask that you reconsider your approach of centralizing authority at the White House. Congress has grappled repeatedly with the question of how to organize the federal government. We have worked to improve the Department of Homeland Security and bring together the disparate law enforcement, intelligence, emergency response, and security components that form its core. We established the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the activities of the 16 elements of the Intelligence Community, breaking down barriers to cooperation that led to intelligence failures before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The bipartisan review by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of the failures associated with the response to Hurricane Katrina led to fundamental reforms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, improving our nation's preparedness and ability to respond to disasters. In each of these cases, the Congress's proposed solution did not consolidate power in a single czar locked away in a White House office. Instead, working in a bipartisan fashion, we created a transparent framework of accountable leaders with the authorities necessary to accomplish their vital missions.

If you believe action is needed to address other failures or impediments to successful coordination within the Executive branch, we ask that you consult carefully with Congress prior to establishing any additional "czar" positions or filling any existing vacancies in these positions. We stand ready to work with you to address these challenges and to provide our nation's most senior leaders with the legitimacy necessary to do their jobs - without furthering the accountability, oversight, vetting, and transparency shortcomings associated with "czars."

Sincerely,

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them. :mad:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 284085)

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them. :mad:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

We also urge you to refrain from creating similar additional positions or making appointments to any vacant "czar" positions until you have fully consulted with the appropriate Congressional committees.

The obamaczar system....it's not that they exist....it's just that you didn't ask.

Do all czars wear RED shirts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 275125)

Richard, other then history about Russia, especially 1917 or so, I never heard the word czar until Bennet either.

What I see is a very top heavy White House with cabinet members,czars, special assistants to this or that, not to mention all those employed by Mrs Obama. Now the real question is how many of these people are in on the policy and actual decision making process? The press secretary Gibbs has a history of extreme loyalty to who employs him. He has more then a few times stated when asked a question- "I have not read that and will have to seek legal advice/counsel."

Perhaps things are finally being examined and real questions are finally being asked by the media? It is a shame the media did little prior to the election to vet one candidate. That is my .02.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alright4u (Post 284106)

And just like 1917 appointing so many czars is an "abuse of power".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 284085)

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them.

Exactly. 'Deeds, not words' isn't a politician's strength, sadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 284085)

Congress funds the White House - don't pay for them. :mad:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Working here inside the beltway, it is becoming harder and harder to discern the separation between the branches of government....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 275125)

Gentlemen,

May I add a little trivia?-

(UNCLAS) During OJC in '89 two FBI agents were attached and accompanied the JSOTF. The sealed indictments out of the Southern and Middle Districts of FL had been in place for quite some time (between the two of them, about 22 months). It's been nearly 20 years but this is what I remember:

On Dec 24th General Noriega who was under indictment made his way into the Papal Nuncituria. By Dec 25th Wm Bennett, we were then referring to as the "drug czar" made the call that DEA would be shown in the lead. That decision came down to the JSOTF thru command.
It was then that S/A Rene de la Cova of the DEA entered the picture (literally) and the FBI showed themselves to be a real class act. They continued to provide support from the background and remained perfect gentlemen.

Meanwhile de la Cova is seen in the pictures on the ramp of the MC-130 on 7 Jan 1990 as "Tony" prepares for his trip to Florida. USMS SOG actually did the heavy work.

Here's the deal on de la Cova

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5583,2801707

Here's the citation to the drug czar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031103567.html

William J. Bennett, who became the nation's first drug czar during the George H.W. Bush administration, said he spent three weeks in a room with Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hashing out the scope of the new job.

v/r
phil

Hope the pix attach

v/r
phil