Something's not right about Czars in the United States
By DuoMaxwell
@DuoMaxwell (953)
United States
August 7, 2009 12:44am CST
You know, a thought occurred to me while I was browsing sites such as:
-Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/)
-Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/)
-The Religion of Peace (http://thereligionofpeace.com/)
-Jeff Rense Program (http://rense.com/)
-Above Top Secret (http://abovetopsecret.com/)
...i've been thinking about the title of "Czar" in the United States, especially in the Obama administration, and i'v been thinking, isn't it illegal one way or another to appoint titles to members of the government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar
I mean, we're not controlled by Currently-Not-So-Great Britain anymore, and we're not a monarchy. Last time I remember, this is the United States of America, a country who fought for freedom against oppressive rules of the crowns, tiaras and scepters. We fought against King George I because of the tyranny that he placed upon us, including grabbing our guns which led to the American Revolution at the time. So shouldn't titles of monarchial royalty, like "czar", be illegal no matter what the sitch is? No other President of the United States did anything like this before, and the Titles of Nobility Amendment should've been put into the Constitution already so that no one in the government puts himself/herself above the law of said Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights.
The title of "Czar" doesn't belong to a nation that places a high value on freedom as people place a high value on gold.
2 people like this
2 responses
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
7 Aug 09
The posistion of "Czar" has been slowly growing in this country since the administration of Franklin Roosavelt. In fact, back then they were litteraly called "dictators". Since those days, many of these positions have been created, but the scale we have seen it at in recent adminstrations is unprecidented.
The problem with this is that it circumvents the protections and safeguards of a congressional aproval or election. they are in a snse, genuine dictators. They do not answer to congress and by proxie, us the people, nor are they chosen by us. they are instead chosen by someone else we chose, in hopes said person could be trusted. The trouble is siad person (a president) is NOT in fact so blindly trusted with such responability, so we have in place congressional approval for all appointments made by the president. The position of Czar circumvents this approval and places us at the whim of one person, one "dicator" or president. Cush a thing would have been repulsive to the people who founded this nation and the people who were handed the country after it's founding.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Aug 09
I was under the impression that these men and women were merely advisors to the president. What exactly are their duties, xfahctor?
All I know is I'm going to research the background of each of them. I already dislike intensely what I know about the science czar...John Holdren. How left wing nut job can a person get?
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
8 Aug 09
You know, I had not thought about that! The more I see from our new administration, the more worried and concerned I become about the fate and direction of our great nation. I truly am beginning to believe that our freedom and democracy is in serious danger and do not understand why more people do not see this.
I will definitely do some further research into these people and their positions in our government. It will give me some more letters to write to my senators too.
Maybe more people will begin to become concerned and begin to actually do something about this.
