There is a lot of concern about the current Obama administration’s appointment of a horde of czars. The term czar (or tsar) comes from old Russian and was a title for one who was an emperor with great power. It is important to note that these positions don’t actually have the word czar in their titles. President Obama has appointed people who are direct advisors to him and who have influence over large sections of the federal government. Some have put the count of Obama’s czar’s as much as 40, Glenn Beck puts his count at 32, but only 18 of those report directly to the President or the Vice President. Some call this a shadow government because these czars do not go through congressional approval like cabinet members do.
The truth is that the President can organize his executive branch pretty much however he likes. The president could disband the cabinet outright and it would be within his rights to do so. Other presidents including Bush and Regan appointed special advisors. In fact, so do many congressmen and women. Unfortunately, appointments made without review can result in embarrassment when a communist or shoplifter has been appointed. Is the solution to have every advisor marched before congress? That would further slow down a congressional body that rarely gets anything done to begin with.
What then does the Constitution actually require? It is the second paragraph of Article II Section 2 which has the answer:
“he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
The key phrase is “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Supreme Court precedent holds that an "officer" subject to these requirements is one who exercises "significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." If you think one of Obama’s czars fit this description and have not been before Congress, file a lawsuit and let the Supreme Court decide.
So what does this mean the czars can do? Well they can spend money granted to the Executive branch through the appropriations process of the Congress. They can analyze, advise, develop strategies and plans, and lecture. However, their signature on any order, decision or regulation establishing or altering America’s or Americans' legal obligations would be meaningless and unenforceable. Fear not the Obama Czar, but feel free to watch them closely to keep them in line. We should be watching all these Washington D.C. types and keep them working for us. No easy task.
