Isn’t Czarism bad for the constitution?

Just what we need — another Czar!
This time, we’re getting an Internet Czar.
Adds Glenn Reynolds,

Several readers point out that, once again, Obama is putting power into the hands of an appointed official who is not subject to Senate confirmation.

The reason “Czars” (whether reigning on the Internet or elsewhere) are not subject to Senate confirmation is because the “advice and consent” provision only applies to positions falling within the constitutional purview:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and 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.

Does this mean that “Czars” are “inferior officers”?
Or is the president simply creating power out of thin air? I share the concern of Glenn’s readers about “putting power into the hands of an appointed official who is not subject to Senate confirmation,” but what power? Where does such power come from?
Have we reached a point where the idea of constitutionally enumerated and limited powers has become a fiction?
I guess they don’t call them czars for nothing. While no one seems to know exactly how many czars there are, President Obama is so in love with czarism that he is being called a “Monarchist.” Even before he took office, he made it clear that he was going to dramatically increase the nation’s czar supply:

…Mr. Obama will name former Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner as a White House energy czar, along with other officials to head the Energy Department and EPA. Over the weekend, he announced New York City housing commissioner Shaun Donovan as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and he is also planning to name an urban-affairs czar to work out of the White House, likely Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion.
He has already named an economic czar, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker, to look at big-picture economic issues — while he also has a Council of Economic Advisers, a National Economic Council and a large Treasury Department right next door.
He has made former Sen. Tom Daschle a health czar of sorts, in addition to making him secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress came close to creating a car czar, and even though that legislation died, the idea could return. And public interest groups are lobbying for a consumer czar.

Via James Joyner, who noted Mickey Kaus’s call for a “Czar Czar”, to harmonize the nation’s czars.
So far, czarism in the United States has been a failure, which is good.

“There’ve been so many czars over last 50 years, and they’ve all been failures,” said Paul Light, an expert on government at New York University. “Nobody takes them seriously anymore.” He pointed to officials placed in charge of homeland security and drug policy.
The problem is that “czars” are meant to be all-powerful people who can rise above the problems that plague the federal agencies, he said, but in the end, they can’t. “We only create them because departments don’t work or don’t talk to each other,” Mr. Light said, adding that creation of a White House post doesn’t usually change that. “It’s a symbolic gesture of the priority assigned to an issue, and I emphasize the word symbolic. When in doubt, create a czar.”

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky.
I’d hate to think that all this symbolic power might become the real thing, because that would violate the spirit of that quaint little phrase that goes “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.”
(Wouldn’t want to have to overthrow the Czars or anything….)


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “Isn’t Czarism bad for the constitution?”

  1. ThomasD Avatar
    ThomasD

    If these czars were inferior officers then Congress would have legislated them into effect. Since these positions are not defined by law they cannot be inferior officers.
    It would appear they fall either under the definition of ‘other public ministers and Consuls,’ or ‘all other Officers’ and such appointments should require the advice and consent of the Senate.
    Wouldn’t it be interesting if some Senator tried to schedule hearing on such an appointment?

  2. MAS1916 Avatar

    Czarism is an end-run around congressional oversight and would clearly be unconstitutional if administered by a conservative President.
    Now that Obama has chosen a ‘cool’ Supreme Court nominee, He can expect his Czars to become more aggressive and effective in pursuing other leftist agenda items.
    ‘Coolness’ and a compelling life story are now more important that legislative oversight or intent.
    (for a more detailed look at the ‘coolness’ factor and Obama’s nomination, you can look at:
    http://firstconservative.com/blog/top-ten/political-humor-ten-qualifications-for-supreme-court-nominees )

  3. K Avatar
    K

    Correct, the craze for Czars has no actual meaning in the Constitution. But there is the implication to departments that their Czar will be totally backed by the White House right up to Obama.
    So the heads of departments will hesitate to disagree with the Czar. There are still some who will but they are quickly being rooted out of this Republic and replaced by others who know their place.
    What does a Cabinet meeting mean if the Secretaries are supposedly report to and confer with the President but the Czars are seated behind them hearing everything they say? Which Secretary will present his/her view rather than the Czar’s?
    So we have another layer of decision making, made worse by the indefinite power of the Czar. Power based only upon his relations with Obama.
    This trend is akin to the old Soviet system of placing party representatives in all government offices and on the personal staff of every important officer.
    The Party Rep supposedly only observed and liaised to help the the Party govern better. And who could be against better government?
    In practice many were also KGB agents and no official could be sure any act or outcome was not a crime.
    Czars make things worse simply because they enlarge decision making. If the Secretaries can’t coordinate and run matters effectively then why expect a Czar to do better?
    One way to improve US government is too fire about 90% of the White House staff. No President employed a personal army of thousands until the big buildup began under Kennedy.
    A few astute observers have spoken about the “Imperial Presidency” over the last few decades. Few citizens listened.

  4. SteveBrooklineMA Avatar
    SteveBrooklineMA

    “Have we reached a point where the idea of constitutionally enumerated and limited powers has become a fiction?”
    We reached that point quite a while ago. Even before Justice Thomas’ ruling you linked to a short while back…
    “If Congress can regulate this […], then it can regulate virtually anything?and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

  5. Mrs. du Toit Avatar
    Mrs. du Toit

    Have we reached a point where the idea of constitutionally enumerated and limited powers has become a fiction?

    Yes. Across the board.