Czars, Czars, and One More Czar?

A Manufacturing Czar? What is that? Does he get to approve what manufactures get to produce? What limits his powers? What limits the powers of any of these czars since the White House is throwing the Constitution out the door?

I emailed one of my senators and my representative about the constitutionality of the czars (copy and pasted my comments). My senator, a Republican, wrote back that he was concerned about this issue and the house was beginning to make moves on it, and if and when the Senate actually takes up the debate about it, he would keep my comments in mind. In other words, he said don't bother me with this right now.

My representative said he supports the new house bill being introduced that would put limits on the Presidents ability to just nominate anyone for these "positions" without more oversight. He wrote that these positions have been used for years and, according to his people, they are legal. In other words, I really don't know, and there is a lot of confusions among my colleagues because if these are illegal that means the untouchable Ronald Reagan used illegal appointments - and we can't touch the god of the Republicans.

This goes to show me the credibility of my leaders. They are party pundits in disguise. Don't rock the boat or our man can't have the same advantages. Don't stand up too much for the Constitution or we may have to actually re-read it and follow it.

Maybe all new Representatives and Senators should be forced to take a class on the Constitution and the writings of those who were there (such as the Federalist Papers). Of course with our government schools pouring out graduates who cannot read above an eight grade reading level, I am afraid that these writings including the Constitution are at a reading level that they themselves may not be able to comprehend. That's why they higher lawyers to write their legislation for them

But here is the question no one has been able to answer for me yet: Where has Congress ever vested in the president the right to appoint such inferior officers "by LAW"? Look at this from the Constitution:

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.

The Congress may "by Law" grant the permission. Advisers do not have the power these czars have! Advisers are one thing, but these 32 people are something else! If these people are wielding powers from the office of the White House, they must bee established "by LAW"!

If I am reading the Constitution wrong or the Federalist Paper #76 (written by Hamilton) incorrectly, please explain your reasoning. Otherwise, our presidents continue to usurp powers they clearly do not have, and our current president is taking it to new extremes.

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration. - Hamilton, Federalist Paper 76

Maybe if our government would have followed the reasoning of our Founding Fathers, we could have avoided the Vann Jones debacle.