H.R.3226 - Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009

09-09-09, 03:43 PM

To provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis), without the advice and consent of the Senate.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3226

Full Text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-3226

SteamWake · 09-09-09, 03:44 PM

No chance in hell this will pass.

AVGWarhawk · 09-09-09, 03:59 PM

It needs to. Obama has thugs as Czars. Furthermore, Czars is not the greatest of names either. At any rate, we do not need to pay salaries to folks who call other a-holes because they do not agree with them.

Platapus · 09-09-09, 08:38 PM

The key term is "inappropriately appointed".

Under Pub. L. No. 76-19, 53 Stat. 561, 5 USC 133 (1939) Aka "the Reorganization Act of 1939), the president is allowed to appoint, without the advise and consent of the Senate, advisors. There are some exceptions in that some of these advisors do require Senate consent.

So if the President appoints someone under the auspices of PL 76-19, they would not be "inappropriately appointed" and therefore not addressed under the proposed HR 3226.

It would only apply if the President were to appoint someone to a position that requires Senate consent, without getting Senate consent. And the likelihood of any President doing that is slim.

Now if legislation is being discussed that will change PL 76-19 to require all Presidential advisors to be confirmed by the Senate, that would require a change or dismissal of PL 79-19.

I would not be in favour of such action. The President, in accordance with applicable laws such as PL 76-19 should be able to consult with advisors of his choosing and not those of the Senate's choosing.

It should also be noted that not all US "czars" are appointed by the President. There are some that are appointed by cabinet members.

August · 09-09-09, 09:16 PM

I'm against it. Passage of this bill would mean that future presidents could be prevented from assembling their team for political purposes. Anyone remember the circus surrounding Bush's appointments?

09-09-09, 03:43 PM	#1
CastleBravo Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	H.R.3226 - Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 To provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis), without the advice and consent of the Senate. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3226 Full Text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-3226

09-09-09, 03:44 PM	#2
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	No chance in hell this will pass. __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

09-09-09, 03:59 PM	#3
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	It needs to. Obama has thugs as Czars. Furthermore, Czars is not the greatest of names either. At any rate, we do not need to pay salaries to folks who call other a-holes because they do not agree with them. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

09-09-09, 08:38 PM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	The key term is "inappropriately appointed". Under Pub. L. No. 76-19, 53 Stat. 561, 5 USC 133 (1939) Aka "the Reorganization Act of 1939), the president is allowed to appoint, without the advise and consent of the Senate, advisors. There are some exceptions in that some of these advisors do require Senate consent. So if the President appoints someone under the auspices of PL 76-19, they would not be "inappropriately appointed" and therefore not addressed under the proposed HR 3226. It would only apply if the President were to appoint someone to a position that requires Senate consent, without getting Senate consent. And the likelihood of any President doing that is slim. Now if legislation is being discussed that will change PL 76-19 to require all Presidential advisors to be confirmed by the Senate, that would require a change or dismissal of PL 79-19. I would not be in favour of such action. The President, in accordance with applicable laws such as PL 76-19 should be able to consult with advisors of his choosing and not those of the Senate's choosing. It should also be noted that not all US "czars" are appointed by the President. There are some that are appointed by cabinet members. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

09-09-09, 09:16 PM	#5
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'm against it. Passage of this bill would mean that future presidents could be prevented from assembling their team for political purposes. Anyone remember the circus surrounding Bush's appointments? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.