Fox Debunks Its Own Attack On Obama's 'Czars'

07/15/09: FoxNews's Jane Skinner breathlessly introduces "All the President's Czars," claiming there are "more than 30 czars" that "do not need to be confirmed by the Senate like Cabinet secretaries do," asking "where the oversight is" and "if it is really actually constitutional."

Correspondent Wendell Goler explains that this is nothing new, that "there is no constitutional issue," and that many of these "czars" are confirmed by the Senate. He reminds Skinner that when Condoleezza Rice was National Security Adviser, she refused a subpoena over the "the evidence of Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction."

The "FNC Brainroom" list, drawn from the Taxpayers for Common Sense, includes at least eight Senate-confirmed positions, and one person -- Elizabeth Warren -- who is actually an oversight official on a Congressional panel.

SKINNER: Already, President Obama has named more than 30 czars, as they're called, people to help out with everything from securing the border, fixing the auto industry -- There's a picture of them. Look at all of them! Much of this work was assigned to Cabinet secretaries in previous administrations. These czars, it's important to know, do not need to be confirmed by the Senate like Cabinet secretaries do. And now even some prominent Democrats are asking where the oversight is and if it is really actually constitutional. Wendell Goler has been looking into this for us. Wendell, are they constitutional?

GOLER: Jane, some critics claim that the czars violate article two, section two of the Constitution, giving the Senate power to advise on nominations and execute nominations. But if that's the case, presidents have been ignoring that part of the Constitution back as far as FDR, and maybe further. The one complaint from critics is that they can't compel some of the czars to come to Capitol Hill and testify. That's a relatively small number. In fact, it would include people like the national security adviser. When she was national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice declined a Senate invitation, a Senate subpoena to come and testify about the evidence of Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. But frankly, few czars would decline an invitation. And others are actually, like the drug czar, are confirmed by the Senate, and would have to testify if they were invited, Jane.

SKINNER: Huh. What do constitutional scholars say about it?

GOLER: Well, scholars like Steven Hess of the Brookings Institution say there is no constitutional issue here. They say there really is just a political issue. While you have got criticism from Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, the longstanding champion of the legislative branch, who says that President Ozama's, uh, Obama's czars may eat into the legislative branch's powers. Most of the criticism has come from Republicans who are out of the White House now, and complain that the czars eat into their already minority status in Congress. Georgia Republican Congressman Jack Kingston today introducing legislation that his aides say will address the issue, but it's not likely to get far in the Democratic Congress, Jane.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Fox
• Fox News
• czars
• Obama
• President Obama
• Barack Obama
• oversight
• Jane Skinner
• Wendell Goler
• Obama czar
• Condoleezza Rice
• Senate
• news
• politics

[rowdy031125]

Just because something illegal has been done by both political parties for several decades doesn't make it right. You would think at a time when our country is in so much turmoil some of our elected officals would want to stand up for what's right and start sorting out some of this garbage.

[rowdy031125]

How did that debunk anything? Some say it violates that constitution some say it doesn't, a couple of democrats don't like it, republicans don't like it, blah blah blah... FDR ignored the constitution and appoint some, so sense it's been going on for a long time now it's ok, blah blah blah... That's the problem, no one has drawn a line in the sand and forced a ruling on whether it's legal or not through the court system.

[Zerodis]

Roosevelt was the first one to appoint Czars (two of them). And have been around since then.

GHW Bush had appointed 3. Clinton also had 3.

Bush junior appointed 21.

Obama has 9.

(Not counting those who were appointed but not confirmed by senate.)

[glasfurd31]

Didn't GWB have czars?

[futurekulture]

Well Pervfiddy

First Kenya King Obama is your King so hail him. Second, privilege is spelled privilege not privelege "that would be a Polish night club in Gdansk (Prive)". Your King asks that you refrain from mock disrespect and condescension and get back to work flipping burgers or pumping gas. McCain could have won if he wasn't 72 and near death and his running mate was Sarah Palin or if he had a record worth mentioning.

[futurekulture]

hehe. Lord i Lord I. You do realize that when you don't vote, you cant talk SHIT. You complain that Barack Obama won. But you do have a point! Just vote next time and THEN you can comment and make your voice heard. Were you too high to make it to the polls?

That would be Presidency

OBAMA 2012 and BEYOND!

[thelex001]

Wendell Goler is a HERO! Is he still working at Fox?

[Lordpianz]

I think regardless of who won the presidenency...we would still be in the same position that we're currently in (confused) Obama is doing what bush didn't finish...and Mccain Believe in Bush...WTF ...Lose...lose either way...btw I didn't vote..not that it would had mattered anyway..lol

[ronpaulbot]

1:46 President Osam.. ab.. Ob.. Obama.

You would think they would learn his name by now.

[jaimymoore]

Uh, we've had "Czars" for decades now, under presidents from either party. It's not a title of royalty.