A question of Constitutionality

[Bill of Rights]

Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 8 reads, in part, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...." This was put in place in the Constitution because of the belief that all men are created equal and thus, there is no noble class, no Lords, Princes, Earls, Knights, or Kings.

It could possibly be argued that with their votes consistently tabulating as they do, the 535 people in Congress making laws that apply to all citizens except themselves have created a de facto pseudonobility, however that would be arguable because of the fact that we do vote every other year and technically can oust all but 66 of them in one fell swoop.

I had a thought today and on checking it seems to bear out: for the past several administrations, even back to Mr. Reagan's term, our Presidents (and the current occupant of the Oval Office as well) have been appointing "czars", or to use the correct transliteration, Tsars.

The term translates to "emperor" or "king".

Have our Presidents (and the current White House occupant as well) violated our Constitution by this action?

Discuss.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

Is "czar" the official term, or is that the mocking term that people use when describing these positions?

I have been wondering this myself.

 

[mrjarrell]

I have to wonder if the case could be made, Bill. Czar certainly is, historically, a title of nobility. I'd like to see someone bring it before a judge, altho my thought is that it would be tossed out. Judges hate to rule on Constitutionality, as we see all too often. On an historical note the positions of czars can be traced back even farther to the Wilson regime with his appointments.

A Brief History of White House Czars - TIME

 

[OneBadV8]

I'm not sure about the constitutionality of it, but I think all positions should have some kind of check and balance so that Tsars aren't just appointed.

I also think senators should still be sent by state legislatures and not voted on by the people. There was a reason the founders created it this way.

 

[PatriotPride]

Is "czar" the official term, or is that the mocking term that people use when describing these positions?

I have been wondering this myself.

This. In my mind, the Constitutionality hinges on this crucial determination: is the title OFFICIAL or UNOFFICIAL?

 

[dross]

I think nobility accords the right to pass the title through heredity. It's also not a position of function, like the "drug czar," but a social rank.

Think of the House of Lords in English parliament. I think those seats are still inherited, while the House of Commons are elected.

I think the larger constitutional question is how these "czars" are the real power, and the confirmed positions are often figureheads. It's a way for administrations - and this one has gone farther than any before - to have radical unconfirmable people running policy, while more politically palatable ones are out front.

That to me violates the spirit of the Constitution's advise and consent requirement, if not the letter.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Arguments against them notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure "csar" is not in their official title - but it's a pretty good description and a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Perhaps if lawmakers were required to, in writing, list all the ways a proposed law could be interpreted and exactly what were the expected consequences of that law, we'd have fewer lawmakers lining up to introduce laws.

 

[308jake]

Arguments against them notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure "csar" is not in their official title - but it's a pretty good description and a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Perhaps if lawmakers were required to, in writing, list all the ways a proposed law could be interpreted and exactly what were the expected consequences of that law, we'd have fewer lawmakers lining up to introduce laws.

You don't actually expect them to think about the ramifications of the laws they create?

We would have a better chance of getting BC stop getting BJs.

 

[UncleMike]

Tsar is taken from the Latin "Caesar" (Emperor)
It's a term used to describe someone with unquestioned power and authority.
In that context, calling the APPOINTED heads of certain Government agencies Czar's is tantamount to conferring unlimited powers to their office.
It makes no difference if the title is "official" or not. It means that those given that title have unlimited power to execute the will of their Master.
In this case the POTUS.
It is Government without "Advice and Consent"
NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted!!!
Mike

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 8 reads, in part, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...." This was put in place in the Constitution because of the belief that all men are created equal and thus, there is no noble class, no Lords, Princes, Earls, Knights, or Kings.

Actually, our founders wanted a king. One man (George Washington) prevented it. Seeing his wisdom, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 was put in the Constitution because the Founders didn't want a noble class. I am not sure they didn't however see a distinction between the elite and common classes of the time.

There is an erronious assumption that our Founders were common men. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were the American aristocracy. Look at who they were. General of the Army, world renounded inventors, politicians, and philosophers, writers, artists; founders of universities, lawyers (at a time most people could not read or write), scholars, business elite, etc. Only a handful of them were farmers, tailors, and what would today be considered the common man.

It could possibly be argued that with their votes consistently tabulating as they do, the 535 people in Congress making laws that apply to all citizens except themselves have created a de facto pseudonobility, however that would be arguable because of the fact that we do vote every other year and technically can oust all but 66 of them in one fell swoop.

Except that the 535 to whom you refer are Constitutionally conferred their titles and powers as a result of assuming a position. In fact it is the position, and not the man (or woman) that is titled.

I had a thought today and on checking it seems to bear out: for the past several administrations, even back to Mr. Reagan's term, our Presidents (and the current occupant of the Oval Office as well) have been appointing "czars", or to use the correct transliteration, Tsars.

Two points. Czar (or Tsar) is a term first coined by the media. It is a title of a position; not a conference of a title of nobility. As soon as they leave the position, they no longer carry the informal title.

The term translates to "emperor" or "king".

Again, the term Czar (or Tsar) was coined by the media, who are neither qualified, empowered or prohibited from granting pseudo titles.

Have our Presidents (and the current White House occupant as well) violated our Constitution by this action?

Nope.

Discuss.

Blessings,
Bill

Interesting thought, but really a stretch to try to draw a correllary between czars and titles of nobility.

A more appropriate question is whether the czar positions themselves are sufficient to make them Officers of the United States subject to the advise and consent requirement of the Constitution. If so, and the appointees are not submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent, it is a violation of the Constitution. Executive power proponents will say no, while legislative power proponents will say yes. It's the less filling / tastes greate debate.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Im inclined to say so; Simply because a "title" does not establish Nobility. However, the line is blurred.

Nobles had Guards.

Nobles usually were not restricted to laws of the Commoner, except in Mob rule.

I cant begin to explain how today "Political" officials have guards, and seem relatively invincible in the eyes of the law.

It sucks, but I didnt make the system, just trying to survive, and ensure the survival of my kin

 

[beararms1776]

There seems to be an over abundance of these appointed czars. Have you heard the song Symphony of Destruction?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Tsar is taken from the Latin "Caesar" (Emperor)
It's a term used to describe someone with unquestioned power and authority.
In that context, calling the APPOINTED heads of certain Government agencies Czar's is tantamount to conferring unlimited powers to their office.
It makes no difference if the title is "official" or not. It means that those given that title have unlimited power to execute the will of their Master.
In this case the POTUS.
It is Government without "Advice and Consent"
NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted!!!
Mike

Not arguing with your definition, but my point was that the term was likely coined by the newsies (who favor brevity over clarity always) and doesn't have anything to do with their actual title - thus no "patent of nobility"

 

[UncleMike]

Not arguing with your definition, but my point was that the term was likely coined by the newsies (who favor brevity over clarity always) and doesn't have anything to do with their actual title - thus no "patent of nobility"

OK.
I'll give you that.
It's just too bad that Americans have become so jaded that they accept the "rule by appointment" that goes on today.
The founding Fathers are rolling in their graves!
Mike

 

[downzero]

Presents no constitutional question. NEXT!