President Obama speaks with former Energy Czar
(mentioned in our latest Judicial Watch Report) Carol Browner

Barack Obama has made a number of decisions during his tenure proving that he has little regard for the U.S. Constitution or the rule of law. At the top of the list is Obama’s penchant for installing radical leftists as czars in his administration without the constitutionally-mandated vetting and approval by the U.S. Senate.

These political appointees, called “czars,” are powerful and difficult to track. Nonetheless, Judicial Watch’s investigation team has taken on the important and exhaustive task of documenting these czar appointments (which number 45 according to our latest tally) and detailing the control these czars have over government operations.

Among the report’s findings are the following:

• Czar appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
• A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.

Barack Obama’s unconstitutional use of czars to help run his administration is at odds with republican, limited, and accountable government. Obama has simply installed his allies in various positions of power while thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people.

As we document in this report, too many of these czars have proven to be corrupt or radical (or sometimes both). No wonder the Obama administration fights tooth-and-nail to allow these czars to operate in secret. Thankfully, our investigators managed to develop this comprehensive list of czars as part of our efforts to ensure government accountability. (Our report details 18 unfilled czar positions!)

(more…)

In the pitched battle over whether government should take over our health care system, a group of pro-life Democrat congressmen held the line to oppose the legislation because they knew the bill authorized funding for abortion.  Under intense pressure from the president and their pro-choice comrades in the Congress, the group, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) flip-flopped when they received a letter from the president ensuring that government would not spend money for abortion.  They were had.

Now Sen. Rob Portman appears ready to “pull a Stupak.”  Under pressure from Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, Portman appears ready to cut a deal to confirm former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to a five-year term to head the super-regulatory agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Word on Capitol Hill is that Portman has assured Cordray he has no problems with his nomination and is asking for assurances that his concerns about the Bureau will be address – not in legislation, but in a letter.  Has Portman learned anything from the Stupak incident?  Apparently not.

Unlike Portman, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is taking a principled stand against the creation of a new super regulatory agency and is not shaking in his boots.  Shelby has organized his colleagues who have pledged to oppose the nomination of Cordray or any other nominee unless the Bureau is reformed.  Unlike Portman, apparently, Shelby is smart enough to demand real statutory changes as opposed to “promised” changes.

The CFPB was structured in a way to give huge, and perhaps unconstitutional, power to its Director.  Alan Raul, who served as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, described the CFPB’s power as “an independent agency on steroids because Congress essentially exempted the director from any meaningful accountability or strong presidential oversight.”

(more…)

It is no secret that the White House is using, with alarming frequency, czars, boards, and executive orders to implement policies that have been met by “inconvenient” obstacles- like the American people and their representatives in Congress.

Following in President Obama’s authoritarian footsteps is the ruling Democratic class of the small state of Connecticut, where Obama-clone Governor Dannel Malloy has recruited, from Yale University, nationally known environmental expert, Daniel Esty, to be the state’s commissioner of the newly combined Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). Of his new recruit, Governor Malloy said, “His experience advising private companies and the president of the United States, coupled with his knowledge of environmental law and policy is second-to-none, and I know this new department will be on the cutting edge of environmental and energy policy with Dan at the helm.”

In 2007 and 2008, Mr. Esty served first as Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign adviser on energy and the environment, and later on as a member of the presidential transition team. So, little wonder Mr. Obama and Commissioner Esty are of the same ilk when it comes to “green” energy and its imposition into the lives of the American people- whether they want it or not.

Mr. Esty sparked considerable controversy recently in the Constitution state through his unprecedented intervention in the matter of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s (PURA) management of a multimillion-dollar application by Connecticut Light & Power Co. (CL&P), which provides electric utility service to most of the state. The application, which involves the rapid installation of 1.2 million “Smart Meters” at residences and businesses over the next four years, was challenged by the state’s Attorney General, George Jepsen, the Office of Consumer Counsel, and an association of industrial energy users. Several weeks ago, Commissioner Esty wrote PURA, upon its draft decision to reject CL&P’s application, asking it to suspend its decision for a few months until his department can “establish the state’s smart meter policy.”

(more…)

Many conservatives and even some liberals have complained about Obama’s penchant for appointing “czars” in order to avoid accountability under law. One of his most notorious is the Consumer Czar, Elizabeth Warren, who was appointed by Obama to help set up and, many fear, to eventually run the monstrous new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

We recently uncovered documents indicating the CFPB has been intensely involved in a 50-state settlement discussion underway with the nation’s largest mortgage lenders regarding alleged improper foreclosure procedures. (Anti-business zealots in the Obama administration and state attorney general offices are trying to extract a $20 billion “settlement” from banks to settle paperwork issues related to foreclosures.)

The documents, obtained in response to open records requests with CFPB and the offices of attorneys general from all 50 states, seem to contradict Warren’s statements before Congress suggesting her office merely responded to requests for advice, but did not seek to push its views. (We initiated our investigation into the controversies surrounding Ms. Warren and the CFPB on March 22, 2011.)

During a March 16, 2011, hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Ms. Warren downplayed her agency’s involvement in the state settlement negotiations: “We have been asked for advice by the Department of Justice, by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by other federal agencies. And when asked for advice, we have given our advice.”

But this does not come close to telling the full story.

(more…)

Would it surprise you to learn that Obama believes it is his “prerogative” to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law when it comes to appointing czars? That’s essentially what he said recently.

Here’s the scoop according to Politico:

President Barack Obama is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending package that would ban several top White House advisory posts.

House Republicans tacked on language to the contentious spending bill to cut the salaries for four so-called czars — policy advisers appointed to assist the president on health care, climate change, autos and manufacturing, and urban affairs.

But in a signing statement issued Friday, Obama said he’s not obligated to comply.

“The president also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it,” the statement said.

The president added that the ban on czars would undermine “the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (Did you catch that? Obama is telling us he must ignore the Constitution to protect the Constitution. Many Obama administration czars have not been subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution.)

Unfortunately for Republicans, the four czars they listed in the bill are no longer serving in their czar positions and will be unaffected by the legislation. (The Obama administration keeps shuffling the deck, moving people in and out of positions of power thereby making them difficult to track.) Still, the main point here is not the fates of these particular four czars, but rather the Obama administration’s willingness to thwart the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Constitution and install unelected, unconfirmed bureaucrats into positions of power with no oversight whatsoever!

(more…)

President Obama’s decision to appoint so many czars is  clearly troubling members of Congress, who have taken the  unusual step of holding hearings on the issue.  The decision of the two Senate committees is remarkable because a President’s management style is rarely questioned by the Senate or House during the first year of his term, especially when they are all members of the same political party.   But, Obama’s decision to appoint almost 40 policy czars, and then give them broad powers and budgetary responsibilities, has created a more serious constitutional issue.  

The Senate is primarily concerned that President Obama may be end-running the Constitution, along with the growing fear, shared by many citizens, that the power and the extraordinary amount of funding that is controlled by the Czars may be undermining the authorities of the senate-confirmed agency heads on whom the Senate has placed its imprimatur and its trust. 

Czars currently influence or directly control over a trillion dollars of government spending, which is more than the spending of the entire federal government during the Reagan Administration.  And, yet, few of the Obama  czars were ever vetted through the traditional review process where potential conflicts of interest are revealed.  Nor are Obama’s czars accountable to the Senate to justify policy or spending decisions. 

(more…)