RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Czar Wars

By Pat Racimora on September 18, 2009 at 6:01 PM in President Barack Obama

webczarwars_edited-2

Czars. Bush appointed a galaxy of them. Obama appointed as many or more. Is this a big problem?

The term “Czar” comes from whatever authority you want to believe. It may be from “Caesar,” referring to his appointments to top-ranking positions. Or maybe it came from “Tsar,” to refer to Russian monarchs. No matter. To be labeled a “Czar” carries considerable clout conferred by other than means specified in our Constitution.

I don’t jump on any bandwagon just because Republicans are upset. That’s their role now. And if I thought Congress was competent and that Obama was experienced enough to know what he is doing, I might be somewhat less suspicious. But I am concerned.

So, let’s look at the issues.

First, most of us have never heard of most of these high-priced (and guess who is paying?) now-powerful people. I sampled a few resumes and was impressed with most of them (although we have already seen falling Czar, Van Jones). I like that some are intellectuals rather than lawyers-turned-politicians (although scholars sometimes have one hell of a time applying their brainpower to the real world). I am much more curious about what they have the authority to do without any oversight outside of the Executive branch.

Second, some czars hold positions that we already have offices and positions to handle. That’s seems like a recipe for clashes and inefficiency. For example, why to we need an Intelligence Czar or a Mideast Policy Czar when we already have a Central Intelligence Agency and a State Department?

Third, that Czars can move and act outside of any formal rules and channels has been cited as an advantage because things can get done more quickly. But aren’t there some flashy red flags here? Especially with an administration that has not lived up to its promise of transparency?

Fourth, put aside that Glenn Beck is busily Czar gazing. When Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the liberal Democrat who also chairs the Senate Constitutional Subcommittee, is alarmed by Obama’s rising czars, I sit up straight in my chair and become uncommonly alert. Seems Feingold sent a letter to the White House asking some hard questions. Here are the main sections [emphases mine]:

As you know, there has been much discussion about your decisions to create and assign apparently significant policy-making responsibilities to White House and other executive positions; many of the persons filling these positions have come to be referred to in the media and even within your administration as policy “czars.” I heard firsthand about this issue on several occasions from my constituents in recent town hall meetings in Wisconsin.

The Constitution gives the Senate the duty to oversee the appointment of Executive officers through the Appointments Clause in Article II, section 2. The Appointments Clause states that the President “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 proved for, and which shall be established by law.” This clause is an important part of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, empowering the Senate to weigh in on the appropriateness of significant appointments and assisting in its oversight of the Executive Branch.

As a member of the Senate with the duty to oversee executive appointments and as the Chairman of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee, I respectfully urge you to disclose as much information as you can about these policy advisors and “czars.” Specifically, I ask that you identify these individuals’ roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause. I hope that this information will help address some of the concerns that have been raised about new positions in the White House and elsewhere in the Executive Branch, and will inform any hearing that the Subcommittee holds on this topic.

Thank you for considering my views on this important matter. I very much appreciate your commitment to transparency and open government and look forward to your prompt response.

Finally, kudos to Feingold for also noting that the good folks in Wisconsin have raised the issue in town hall meetings. Nice to know someone in Congress is listening to the people!

So, let’s see who wins the Czar Wars. Stay tuned.