09 June 2009
It seems strange that a president of a democratic republic would appoint people who are given the title "Czar". But that's what we now have in Washington D.C.
The Barack Obama administration has appointed a Pay Czar, a Border Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, a Car Czar, a Great Lakes Czar, an Energy Czar, an Urban Czar, an Infotech Czar, a Faith-Based Czar, a Health Reform Czar, a TARP Czar, a Stimulus Accountability Czar, a Non-Proliferation Czar, A Terrorism Czar, a Regulatory Czar, and a Guantanamo Closure Czar.
There are also several Special Envoys who have not been given the title "Czar", probably because Obama can't appoint someone to be Middle East Czar, or Persian Gulf Czar. That wouldn't sound right.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor am I a lawyer. But I have read the Constitution and didn't find any mention of Czar. I thought one of the reasons why we have a constitution is so we will never have a Czar. Is it even constitutional for a president to appoint cabinet level people who are unaccountable?
The Czars in the Obama administration are accountable to no one except the President. There are no checks and balances, no vetting, no Congressional hearings leading up to an appointment, as is the case with all Cabinet level positions. The Czars are free-rangers. They do as the President directs, and report only to him.
Appointing Czars is a bad idea. It can lead to circumventing the checks and balances established in the Constitution, and to consolidating too much power in the office of the President. The opportunity for abuse is large.
This is America. We have never had, and never should have, any kind of Czar.
EDIT: This Just In! More Czars!
Posted by Michael Haz at 4:42 PM