I think Sen. Russ Feingold deserves our thanks, not our condemnation for...............

joeycola

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Oct-08-09 10:04 AM
Original message

I think Sen. Russ Feingold deserves our thanks, not our condemnation for...............

I think Sen. Russ Feingold deserves our thanks, not our condemnation for

calling a hearing related to czars. No doubt he has been confronted by questions related to this in his recent town hall meetings. In reading some of the articles about the hearing, I think he had valid concerns about Senate over site of these positions. He also talked about this hearing being important in the sense that this hearing was a legitimate place for discussion rather than the cable news.

Feingold called as witnesses five constitutional scholars to address this issues. The outcome: "In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained."

I can't help but think that Feingold knew this before the hearing as he is no novice when it comes to constitutional issues as many of you know. But regardless, I believe he has put this issue to rest--or at least helped to do so in a site (Senate hearing) that legitimises the outcome.

Feingold is a strong Democrat and I, for one, am glad to have him in the Obama administration. Equating him with Beck and other loud, vile repugs is wrong, just plain wrong.
I thank Feingold for the Senate hearing. I wrote him a short snail mail letter to thank him.

.................................

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/czar-wars/

................But while the criticism aimed at Obama appointments that do not undergo the scrutiny of Senate confirmation has been viewed as largely partisan, it is gaining a little traction among Democratic lawmakers as well. Aides to Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and the chairman of a Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, suggested that he�s leaning toward holding a hearing on the topic. And Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, wondered aloud to Politico this week what exactly a car czar does.

Senator Feingold dispatched a letter outlining his concerns to the White House this week, as did six Republican senators in a separate missive. While they acknowledged that past presidents, including Mr. Bush, employed a number of advisers who were sometimes called czars, Mr. Feingold, who is running for re-election, said he had been hearing concerns at his town hall meetings about the number of top aides in this White House.

In a statement, Mr. Feingold added: �I felt that these people have a point, and of course the use of so-called czars didn�t begin with the current president. There is a serious constitutional issue here, and that is whether the appointment of �czars� is an end-run around the advice and consent process. The White House ought to respond to legitimate questions and recognize that providing more information in a calm and reasonable forum might be a more productive approach than engaging in a political war of charges and countercharges.� .....................

...........

Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'
Source: LA Times

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.

Reporting from Washington - Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy "czars" is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of these so-called czars, officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental, health and other policy areas among various departments.

Lawmakers in both parties have sent letters to the White House saying the officials' appointment circumvents Congress' authority to confirm top executive branch officials and subject them to oversight hearings.

But the panel of constitutional experts testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution did not support the complaints. .................

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-czars7-2009oct07,0,3535667.story

..............................................

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/senators-take-on-the-czar-wars/

October 7, 2009, 8:00 am
Senators Take On Czar Wars
By Kate Phillips
Senator Russ Feingold held his promised hearing on the constitutionality of so-called czars in the Obama administration on Tuesday afternoon, winnowing away at a list of criticized appointees in his effort to examine whether the Senate�s advise-and-consent role was being circumvented by the executive branch.

.................And in this polarized climate, the word has taken on a meaning of its own. �I should note that while the term czar has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed,� Mr. Feingold said. Then he ventured into the turf of his hearing on the substantive issue of executive power vs. legislative roles:

�But historically a czar is an autocrat, and it�s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government. While there is a long history of the use of White House advisers and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate.

In expressing disappointment that Obama aides didn�t see fit to appear, Mr. Feingold took a swipe at the administration�s public strategy of batting back these charges over the air or in the public arena of blogs or TV. (Anita Dunn, the communications director for the administration, picked apart the Glenn Beck hit list of 32 czars a few weeks back on the White House blog, which has of late become an online war room for taking on its nemesis, Fox News and in particular, Glenn Beck.)

�The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many �czars� on a political level rather than a substantive level,� Mr. Feingold said. �I don�t think that�s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions? �....................

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61889-gibbs-mocks-czar-hearings#thecomments-form-message

Gibbs mocks czar hearings
By Eric Zimmermann - 10/06/09 06:09 PM ET
The White House was not impressed by the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on czars today, if press secretary Robert Gibbs's comments were any indication.

The hearing, entitled "Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch Czars," was chaired by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), one of the few Democratic critics of Obama's "czars."

"I don't know if Senator Feingold is calling Franklin Roosevelt to be a witness," Gibbs quipped. "I forget the...said lofty scholarly title of said hearing."

Republicans have criticized the White House for appointing too many czars that don't require Senate confirmation. Democrats respond that previous presidents--including Republicans--have made use of so-called "czars."

"I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than something like this," Gibbs added.................