‘ “Czars, “Tsars,”"Whatever the Nomenclature: What Are They and Why?’
by Marion Edwyn Harrison (8/7/09)
President Barack H. Obama has appointed some thirty-two individuals to administratively created key positions, thereby avoiding the process of enacting statutes to create such positions and also that of nominating the individuals for United States Senatorial confirmation. Some wit named the positions Czar - possibly in recognition of their perceived power, possibly in derogation of the almost unprecedented acts of creation and appointment.
Representative Eric I. Cantor, of Virginia, one of the brightest and best educated Members of Congress, and also Minority Whip of the House of Representatives, has written a clever critique about the thirty-two, published in THE WASHINGTON POST. There also has been considerable media attention about some of the so-called Czars.
The creation of these offices with their varied and extensive powers and duties undoubtedly would make them “principal officers” in United States Supreme Court terminology, cases about appointment and removal dating from 1935. This normally would require Presidential nomination and Senatorial confirmation. Whatever in law these czarist creatures may be, thirty-five Members of Congress are sponsoring H.R. 3226, a (probably futile) effort to block appropriations for the likes of these czars.
The appellation czar is colorful if excessively applied, given the absolutism of the Russian Empire Czars prior to the 1917 Revolution. However, the basic point is well taken. Why have these positions been created outside the customary and Constitutional nomination-and-confirmation process? This commentary obviously can’t answer the question. Realistic, if coincidentally negative, speculation inevitably suggests a Presidential scheme to bring more power into the Executive Branch of the Federal Government while avoiding the Congressional Branch - all the more unusual in that the Presidency and the 111th Congress are of the same political party.
Identification of the thirty-two czarist or nominally czarist positions is irrelevant to the foregoing question but out of curiosity might be worth listing.
So be it, using informal if often media-common names, Czars all: Mideast Peace, Mideast Policy, Sudan, Guantanamo Closure, Green Jobs, Energy, Technology, Urban Affairs, Great Lakes, WMD, Terrorism, Stimulus Accountability, TARP or Troubled Assets Relief Program, Government Performance, Information, Car, Pay (“Special Master for Compensation”), Health, Border, Cybersecurity, Drug, Economic, Climate, Faith-based, Intelligence, IP Enforcement, Regulatory, Science, War, supposedly four more.
Arguments can be presented that the Executive needs more power, the Congress less. That’s another subject. The President evidently has switched from his candidacy view - criticism of President George W. Bush for grabbing too much Executive Department power - to his administrative view - grabbing more power. Political scientists may have fun theorizing about the subject. Meantime, the President is marching, providing, seizing or usurping, however one cares to evaluate the movement.
Marion Edwyn Harrison
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
|
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Contributors, authors, columnists and editor are not paid.
Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of the USA Sentinel.
Content is Copyright ©2006-2012 the individual authors.
