Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (310084)	6/15/2009 7:27:40 PM
From: MichaelSkyy	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793729

Fortunately, there is a remedy. Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court. Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have a court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist. Then everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes. Tell 'em to eat chit and bark at the moon!!!

To: gamesmistress who wrote (310084)	6/16/2009 8:35:49 PM
From: KLP	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793729

Good report on Czars and Robert Byrd, Gina. Transparency is a 2 sided window. O must mean from the inside looking out, he is transparent….because from the outside looking in, he is ANYTHING but transparent. He has totally blocked the outside of the windows so we can't look in. Sure, we citizens could ignore the Czars, but what are they digging up behind our backs? Are there minions of ACORN folks looking through private emails? Never thought I'd see a day where I agreed with Sen. Byrd on much of anything. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.

To: gamesmistress who wrote (310084)	8/9/2009 6:24:13 PM
From: MJ	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793729

Regarding Czars Senator Byrd was right to raise the question of the use of the word Czar. I have been wondering off and on when and why Obama chose that designation? Now I am wondering even more------' I am clearing old boxes of papers and came across an envelope of WWI papers kept by someone in the family. On one full page is an on going story----"A Tale of Love, Mystery and the Great War"T" picturing a woman with a Red Cross insignia and a military man being treated----story to be continued next Sunday. (Believe this was a page from Bluefield, Virginia and West Virginia Paper) On the reverse is a full page title "The Last Moments of the Unhappy Czar Described by His Priest"----this is the story of the Trial and Execution of Nicholas Romanoff, How he was condemmed without evidence and shot as told by Father John of the Uspensky Cathedral. Father John wrote this 20 years after the execution of Romanoff as Father John was with Romanoff in the last week before his execution. Yes, I am rambling----------but why the use of the word Czar by Obama. Senator Byrd certainly is correct-------the American Constituion has no place for Czars. Obama needs to be called on this again. Senator Byrd is not long for this world------we need someone else to call him on this. The second question that arises----------have we ever had a President who used the term Czar? I think not. mj