'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down'

[mAlice]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Are all these Czars being paid with our tax dollars? Or are they doing this for free?

You have a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Guess.

[chernmax (Premo)]

God Damn America...

[ylexot (Premo)]

US Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 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."

So, the ones who have not been confirmed by the Senate are unconstitutional.

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by White Buddah

It's not the terminology that is the problem. It's the fact that it is unconstitutional to have czars and all of the czar's the imposter in chief has. How many are there now? 30 some? Not only that, look at the freaks he's got in those positions and what their backgrounds are. It's freakin scary!!!!!!

I don't see where Obama is any different from any other President with referring to a position as Czar:

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And not all of them senate confirmed.

Hot Air maybe?

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by ylexot

US Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 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."

So, the ones who have not been confirmed by the Senate are unconstitutional.

Well, the practice has then been going on for countless years. Many a president, republicans included appointed their Czar's. Where was the outrage then? Why now all of a sudden? What is so different about what Obama is doing when the last President did it and so on and so on.....

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by Pushrod

Alexa, come on, don't close your mind to this also. Don't you find it disturbing that 0bama has so many radical close advisors to him? I would be all over any President (D, R or I) that did this, you should also. We need to praise Obama when he deserves it and also call him out when he is screwing the nation.

Ohhh! Come on...I will give credit on a screw up when credit is due....but this Czar fiasco....it's BS in the purest form.

[bcp (Premo)]

When the senate is bypassed in the appointing of a Czar, it is a violation of the constitution.
he is a criminal.

[Alexa]

Originally Posted by bcp

You would do well knowing all the facts about something before you try to pass it as good reason for doing something else.
let me help you.

1) the term Czar in Reagan's appointment was actually first used by the media. Not the President or government in general.
2) The Drug Czar of years gone past that you so lovingly refer to was in fact appointed by Reagan, however he was also voted on and approved by the Senate before he took the position. (the creation of the position was also voted on)

your messiah has not allowed for the approval of the senate in his choices, he appoints, and any one that criticizes him is racist.

certainly someone of your upstanding character can see the difference between the two.

This is the second time you have initiated race in a debate for no reason what so ever. Race has nothing to do with it and so.....I will kindly leave it out of discussion.

However, your absolutely right.... I stand corrected. The media did come up with the terminology because

Member of Executive Board of the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System Cabinet Level

was quite a mouthful as many of these appointments are. And I learned that it went far beyond the Reagan era.....Franklin Roosevelt was the first one to use this terminology.

And while you are correct that approval of the senate for choices are made, it isn't for every position and this particular one of Reagan's may surprise you to know was an entirely new position that was a Presidential appointment and not confirmed by the Senate. Not on Reagan's watch. This one doesn't seem to have been from what I can find, but was in all subsequent administrations.

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So...yes, I can see the difference between the two....but doesn't answer how "Czar" is an issue in this administration and not in prior administrations.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Alexa

So...yes, I can see the difference between the two....but doesn't answer how "Czar" is an issue in this administration and not in prior administrations.

because this false administration is not going through the proper steps to have the appointees approved by the senate.
His appointees also for the most part have some questionable backgrounds.

If you cant understand any of this, then there really is no reason to discuss it with you any further.

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Alexa

Well, can't say the choice of words are all that great. But, I do think what is trying to be said is that the governments elected officials, the majority who are white, aren't reflective of the American people that are more diverse in its ethnic backgrounds. In order to have a government more reflective of that background, it is up to the American people to elect them to office.

Why do you feel a need to try and explain this? There's a concept that 95% of taxpayers use: EARN IT!!!