Call me slow but did we have these before the new Admin ?
 

Czar's

Russia has had them for centuries Dave. We're just finally catching up.:rolleyes:

Seriously did the US have any appointed Czars before ? if we did I am sorry but if not why the sudden use ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...lation-growth/

Yeah its fox but come on now.

To get you used to the jargon, Comrade.

I think Reagan had the first one, but I could be mistaken.

Chas

I think Bush senior appointed a Drug Czar to conduct the war on drugs.

President Nixon appointed the first "czar" in 1973: energy czar William Simon.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36081.html

We have had them for qutie some time, but Obama has a *lot* of them. Some are concerned that he is trying to extend the power of the Executive by appointing so many.

Thanks for the answers. I honestly never followed them that much hence the question.

Next question. How does one get rid of a Czar ?

There are two ways. If you love America and our freedom, you vote for people who you believe will lead us in the best manner possible. If you hate America, hate freedom and want to commit a felony against her, there is this way:

http://www.politicalchat.org/offroad...read.php?t=202

I reckon that's what happened back in uhhh....1776?

So your telling me these are appointee for life ?

Nah, William Bennet was the drug czar I was thinking of erlier and he sure is not now. It is simply appointing someone to be a champion for some particular plan in hopes that he/she can get all the ducks in a row, sort of like herding cats.

So I don't love America? Depends on which America you mean. Let's just be safe and say I love the constitution and liberty.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

-Article Three of the United States Constitution

Well, I'm not too hep on the term "Czar", but if they were to call 'em something else (I won't make any suggestions...but I've got a few) and not pay 'em, I have no complaints.

Chas

Does that mean the winning votes are ALWAYS the BEST leaders? Promises...promises...yeah...
True Americans love the country enough to continue it's traditions. If it was good enough for our founding fathers...the traditions should be for our children and grandchildren. The Constitution rules!!! Free speech rules!!! I remember when.....

Sadly I am not sure that the Constitution rules, SCOTUS recently ruled that expert witnesses must be present at the trial. This is supposedly in line with the Sixth Amendment, so how come they don't apply the same thinking to no-knock warrants?

Sorry, but I really don't get what your trying to say.:confused:

Let me say it more clearly.

You advocate overthrowing the government of the United States by armed force.

You say you love the Constitution.

I was pointing out the Constituion specifically defines overthrowing the government of the United States as illegal. You can not love the Constitution if you want to commit treason against it.

Does that clear up your confusion?

OK, I get it now, sorry. I feel like it would be defending the constitution though. Have you ever really read it? Washington isn't even pretending to recognize it any more. Let's say Obama is a great guy, and in 8 years everything is roses. Then we get someone elected who blatantly starts converting our government to say Fascism. After a couple years every business of any size is under government control. The government is deciding all our health care issues, and has "files" on every citizens medical info. Soldiers are starting to refuse to go into battle, denying this guys authority, and even his citizenship. The guy has legislation introduced to do away with term limits. Then, then, the guy goes down to wherever they keep the original document and shreds it to bits! He then announces that he is the supreme leader, and we are all his subjects. Would it be ok to "rise up in arms" then, or would it be treason?

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such, because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as others have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

Excerpt from Ben Franklin's speech at the Philadelphia Convention. Quoted without comment.

Looks like the writing has been on the wall for quite a while doesn't it?

What has congress, the president ot the supreme court done to make you say this?

Nice find, my hat's off to you, Sir.

Always being a fan of Natural Law (is that Locke...been a long time since skool), I can live with a ruling equal, but I have no use for a master.

Kind of reminds me of a magazine article I read years ago where the author suggested ditching the Stars and Stripes for the Gadsden Flag. As he put it, "Fuck with me and I'll kill you, what a great slogan for a country!"

IMHO, what a great slogan for everyone, but us Scott/Irish always have been hard heads.

Chas

Does anyone else think it's odd that a democracy even has Czars?

I think it's just another way to get your buddy who gave you a truck load of cash during your campaign a job.

I remember the Drug Czar, I see a Czar worked on that problem.

Chas, I found that speech of Franklin's in Madison's "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" ISBN 0-393-30405-1, published by W. W. Norton & Company.

I poersonally think it should be required reading in our schools - I have been through it three times so far. I picked it up along with the Federalist Papers prior to my naturaliztion hearing as I thought I might get some tough questions. Ha! You are required to write an English sentence as part of the procedure, some of the people in the waiting room I doubt could have done so.

First thing that comes to mind is taxes.

You forget the commerce clause. Our betters have found this to be the ultimate shoehorn for regulating the behavior of us peons and making a buck while doing so.

But since it's for our own collective good, who am I to complain.

Chas

Yep, and silly me, I thought that was one of the big reasons we drew up the declaration of independence. In my thinking, taxation without representation is everywhere in our society. For example, convicted felons do not have the right to vote, so how can they be taxed?:confused:

Then there are "No Knock" warrants that just tossed the 4th and 6th Ammendments in the crapper.

As an agent of the Federal Government, allow me to explain. If you were to work for me, I would seize the required amount of taxes from your paycheck. And then I will forward these funds to the appropriate Government agency. And besides that, being the kind hearted feller I am, I'll match your SS and Medicare payments, and even kick some money into the unemployment fund so that you'll have some bread on the table if I were to up and lay you off. Which I am loath to do, because I'll REALLY be kicking some money into the unemployment fund after the fact.

Hell, I love my government position so much that I've even went and hired a high dollar CPA to make sure I do all of this right. And I do all of this at my own cost, well, at your cost too, and the people we work for costs too.

You would think that I would at least get a crappy tin star or something for my efforts. Reckon I'll just settle for a gun to my head.

Chas