Nothing Wrong With Czars, Experts Testify
But GOP's Collins vows to keep the 'issue' alive with more hearings
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Oct 7, 2009 7:41 AM CDT
President-elect Barack Obama listens as Carol Browner his newly designated White House energy czar speaks at a news conference in Chicago, Monday, Dec. 15, 2008.   (AP Photo)

(Newser) – The anti-czar crusade hit quite the speed bump yesterday, when five constitutional scholars testified in a Senate hearing that it was indeed perfectly legal for the president to have policy advisers. They said the principle dated back to FDR and that, assuming the czars didn’t have any actual legal authority, there wasn’t an issue. “Practical authority is not legal authority,” noted one scholar.

But Republicans weren’t going to be so easily deterred. Susan Collins vowed to keep the issue alive with another hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “The appointments of so many czars have muddied the waters,” she argued, “risking miscommunication going forward.” The experts say Congress has little authority over the czars, who are ultimately members of the president’s personal staff.

View 3 more images
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 18 comments
Oct 10, 2009 2:24 AM CDT
@dawgs - I appreciate the sentiments on my situation and for the record, I didn't say it for that, but only to make a point of the needs right here in our country. But no one cared that people were being needlessly killed by Saddam prior to Busch. The only people who gave a damn what he was doing to his people were the way left liberals. We didn't invade Iraq to save those people. We invaded Iraq for several reasons and all were bad. Oil, Busch's revenge, war profiteering, etc. If you mean the people who died after the invasion, well, they would not have died if we had not invaded. And losing money sucks, no matter what country is draining it from us. If it's being used and used well, I can deal with that. But when it's going down a hole into the pockets of people who are essentially stealing it, I have a problem with that. The war, in conjunction with some of the financial decisions regarding our economy, has drained us. If we'd never gone, things might not be as bad here now. How can we be a bastion to other countries when we are not even a bastion to our own? Also, we might have been in a better position to help now if we had not invaded, but I reiterate that prior to the invasion, no one cared about what Saddam was doing to his people but Amnesty Int'l. and the like...
Oct 8, 2009 5:21 AM CDT
@snar first off let me say that I feel for job situation I do, but there were people over there getting killed just because. If we lost so much money in Iraq and you don't think that it is our place to help other countries then why no protests over the money that goes to Africa, Mexico, or any other host of third world countries? It is America's place to be a bastion of hope and if there is oppression then we have historically came to the rescue. Now did we go into Iraq initially for the wrong reasons? yes, but our side affects have greatly improved what was a shithole for people to live in.
Oct 8, 2009 5:17 AM CDT
you forgot the link...