AMAZING: LIBERAL DEMOCRAT RUSS FEINGOLD HOLDS HEARINGS ON OBAMA'S CZARS

Senator Russ Feingold, a liberal Democrat from Wisconsin, in a bold and courageous display of bipartisanship, had some harsh words in regards to President Obama's excessive appointment of 'czars'. At a hearing on on "Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch 'Czars'" scheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Feingold's opening statement sounded like it came from a conservative member of the President's opposition, rather than a fellow liberal from his own party. Feingold pointed out that the use of the term 'czar', now a title avoided by the Obama administration, has actually been used by the President himself when describing his appointments. Feingold was empathetic towards the concerns Americans have expressed about "all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government."

"I should note that while the term ‘czar’ has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed. I assume they have done so to show the seriousness of their effort to address a problem and their expectations of those they have asked to solve it. But historically, a czar is an autocrat, and it’s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government."

While acknowledging that other presidents have appointed czars, albeit to a much smaller degree, Feingold stunningly debunked the infantile, "He did it too" excuse employed by many of the President's supporters:

“While there is a long history of the use of White House advisors and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate. It is important to understand the history for context, but often constitutional problems creep up slowly. It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘well, George Bush did it too.'"

Feingold then affirmed the need to determine the constitutionality and legitimacy of the President's czar appointments:

“Determining whether these czars are legitimate or whether they will thwart congressional oversight requires analysis of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and a discussion of some complicated constitutional and administrative law principles."

Feingold (again, I can't believe this is coming from a Democrat!) states that the Obama administration declined his invitation to participate in the hearings, while chastising and shaming the White House's unwarranted attacks against anyone questioning the czar appointments:

“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today. That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars’ on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don’t think that’s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?"

Russ Feingold isn't the only liberal Democrat to question the legitimacy and constitutionality of President Obama's czars. Senator Robert Byrd, in a direct letter to the President in February, expressed his concern over the President's unprecedented usage of czars, noting that, “too often, I have seen these lines of

authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process.”

Byrd elaborated further in his gruff letter to President Obama:

“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate confirmed officials. As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

This 'czar' controversy, because of Obama's brazen disregard for the Constitution, is finally gaining traction. And shockingly, the heat is coming liberals from within his own party. Unbelievable.