The word "czar" cannot be found in the United States Constitution, thank God. Neither can "tsar" for you spelling sticklers. That, alone, does not mean government czars are unconstitutional but they are nevertheless.
For example, the Marines are not mentioned in the Constitution but providing for the common defense is. The establishment, organization and funding of the Marines is merely one mechanism by which the specific duty is manifested.
Carried out logically, each of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could be viewed as the czar for each respective military branch. However, no one would seriously argue that any branch of the military, or any of the Joint Chief positions, is unconstitutional.
But a "green jobs" czar?
The first occasion I could find where an appointed official was called a "czar" was from the early 1970s when the press gave the nickname to John Love, President Richard Nixon's in-house energy guru. Perhaps the most visible czar historically was William Bennett, President Ronald Reagan's drug czar, who was part of a well-publicized effort to convince people, and especially children, to "just say no" to illicit drugs. President George W. Bush appointed numerous leaders to oversee various areas of government, some of which the White House described as "czars", some the media merely dubbed as "czars". Many were new appointments to old positions created by previous presidents.
It's hard to know who is a "czar" since that title is not officially given. However, President Barack Obama has zealously appointed czarist leaders at an incredible pace. Indeed, we now have czars to oversee the auto industry recovery, climate, domestic violence, energy and the environment, restoration of the Great Lakes, executive pay, diversity of the FCC, and the aforementioned "green jobs" just to name a few. All of these czars have been appointed without congressional confirmation or direct involvement in the process.*
It is clear based on the language of the Constitution that these positions are patently unconstitutional. And It doesn't matter which president we're talking about.
Apparently presidents don't want Congress or the public to know about these appointments before they happen. How else to explain the appointment of avowed communist Van Jones as "green jobs" czar? Or John Holdren, the science czar who has advocated forced abortion and forced sterilization as acceptable methods of population control? Or Mark Lloyd, FCC diversity czar, who believes "white people" should "step down so someone else can have power"? There would be little mainstream support for such radicals to ascend to the highest eschelons of power if the public could scrutinize them. But they can't before the positions are filled.
The problem, however, is not with the czars themselves. It's with the federal government's hegemony over areas of society and our lives that our founders never would have approved. And we know this because of our founding documents. The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the federal government. Our founders knew that they could not account for every possible scenario and contingency so they divided specific, enumerated powers among the three branches and dramatically limited the areas over which the federal government would have control. Most governance obligations were supposed to exist locally, not federally.
It makes sense that some areas would fall under the exclusive province of the federal government. Immigration and border security, military and national defense, foreign policy and treaties, war and peace, foreign trade and tariffs, coining a standard currency--obviously having different states exercising their own powers in these areas would lead to unworkable disunity. That is part of the Constitution's brilliant simplicity and design.
As the federal government has expanded into other areas, however, the Constitution has lost import and meaning to the point where this once great document has been rendered largely impotent. Take just the examples above. With the exception of energy, for which we have a cabinet level position, there is no authority for the federal government to have any role in climate control, creating "green jobs", setting executive pay, bailing out the auto industry, or removing "white people" from positions of power so that others can take over.
The closest we can get to constitutional justification for federal involvement in these issues is in two places. The first is the Preamble which establishes one purpose of the Constitution, to wit: to "promote the general welfare." The second is in Article I, Section 8, which authorizes Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
Liberals take these two phrases and extrapolate from them that the federal government has a role to play in anything that promotes or provides for the general welfare, including all of the above examples and much more. Doing so, however, ignores a couple of key principles. First, the "general welfare of the United States" does not equate to the specific welfare of any particular individual or group. It might be a laudable goal to establish, for example, a social safety net for the struggling, fund the growth of new technologies or stem-cell research, stamp out domestic violence or illicit drugs, prevent the spread of AIDS, or address "urban affairs" (whatever those are). All arguably could promote the general welfare. But if that's the definition we intend to apply to constitutional terms, then the federal government has carte blanche.
Second, this dovetails with the unambiguous fact that the Constitution was designed and enacted to limit federal power, not expand it. Check the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if you doubt it. Unlike the Marines example which can be traced directly to a clearly enumerated power granted in the Constitution, liberals have to either fit these other powers in the vague "general welfare" category or use convoluted arguments in several steps to fit enumerated powers. For example, creating "green jobs" and bailing out the auto industry could both be considered national security issues since we are dependent on foreign oil, we seem to be the world's poster child for environmental destruction (which is laughable), and the stability and growth of our economy is so vital to the world. Voila, the justification for federal control. All we have to do is appoint a czar.
But it is the very expansion and centralization of power in the federal government that has created a perceived need for these officials. No president can possibly maintain a handle on all of these issues. So expansion creates the need the president can fill extra-constitutionally because no one is complaining. And those pesky limits on federal power drafted by old, dead white guys? We can just ignore that part.
Well, I'm complaining and I'm not ignoring it. Neither should you. It's time to scale back federal power to cover only those areas necessary for federal involvement. I've believed this for years but now that I'm "czar-struck" with the revelations about the radicals President Obama has appointed, I've reached my limit.
It's time to depose the czars and eliminate their positions.
Let them go work for ACORN. I hear they have some openings.
* [Author's note: Since original publication, I have learned that some of these "czars" have, indeed, been approved by the Senate. As mentioned above, it can be difficult to determine who is a czar and who isn't. In my haste to publish, I admit I did not have time to research the complete history of every single czar appointment and that is my oversight error. Many, however, have merely been appointed by the president without confirmation. Regardless, neither congressional complicity nor is not a substitute for constitutionality.]
Comments
Just because you don't like a particular decision doesn't mean it doesn't conform to the views of the founders.
Article II of the Constitution says: "but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone"
That law is 3 U.S.C. sec. 105
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to pass this law. The Congress passed the law. The president has the power to make these appointments. End of story, no Constitutional crisis.
Vote for representatives that think repealing the law is a good idea (good luck with that), but don't presume to lecture the rest of us on the importance of the enumerated powers of Congress. We know their importance, and we are quite familiar with them.
I'm not lecturing anyone, Daniel, I'm merely giving my opinion. The part of Article II you quote has to be read in the context of the whole document. Clearly, in context, the founders intended to permit the president to appoint "inferior Officers" consistent with the powers the president is granted by the Constitution. Also, by using the section you quote, you are doing exactly what good liberals do--follow the bouncing ball until you reach the conclusion that will result in the greatest expansion of federal power possible. On the positive side, you're right--we should vote for representatives who will actually change the system. A guy can dream, eh?
You are not "just giving your opinion". You are interpreting the Constitution, and you said "it is clear based on the language of the Constitution that these positions are patently unconstitutional"
The fact is, it's not clear at all. What's clear is that this is perfectly Constitutional, and you are drawing these conclusions based on your ideological background and not based on your concerns about fidelity to the Constitution or the founders. What I'm worried about is that your readers will read you writing "positions are patently unconstitutional" and just believe it, when there is airtight Constitutional authority for this.
If you investigated that Constitutional authority and took it seriously your article would have looked very different. It WOULD have been your opinion and clearly just your opinion. "I don't like all these czars" is very different from "these czars are unconstitutional". Your words have power, Leo. Before saying they're unconstitutional, check.
Liberalism has nothing to do with it, also. It's reasonable to expect the President to be able to staff his administration without waiting for Congress to confirm every single office holder. That's why the founders gave the Congress the power to let the President staff his administration, and that's why Congress gave the President that power, and that's why presidents have excercised that power for a very long time.
It's not an issue of "liberalism" at all.
Apparently, I give readers a lot more credit than you do. I don't believe they are sycophantic sheep who will mind-numbingly agree with me just because I say something. After all, you didn't.
But I'm still right. You've failed to show that the founders could possibly have intended to grant the president the power to appoint a "domestic violence" czar, for example. The law you cite addresses the president's ability to hire employees for the "White House Office" and the "Executive Residence", i.e. employees who will serve in jobs at these locations. Not exactly the same as appointing someone at the federal level to stamp out domestic violence.
I also note that 3 U.S.C. sec. 106 gives similar power to the vice-president, subject to the "performance of functions specifically assigned" by the president. Using your argument, the vice-president could also appoint czars if the president told him to, further attenuating governance from the people and their representatives...
Oh, and don't lecture me. By using lines like "Your words have power, Leo. Before saying they're unconstitutional, check," you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I respect the intellectuality of my readers; you should do the same for the author.
RE: "The law you cite addresses the president's ability to hire employees for the "White House Office" and the "Executive Residence", i.e. employees who will serve in jobs at these locations. Not exactly the same as appointing someone at the federal level to stamp out domestic violence."
Are you serious? That was just an example, Leo, because I imagine many of these so called "czars" are White House employees.
Try:
TITLE 29, CHAPTER 12, § 557a
TITLE 29, CHAPTER 15, § 656
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 48, SUBCHAPTER IV, Part A, § 3461
TITLE 38, PART I, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER I, § 512
Or the all-inclusive: TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart B, CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER I, § 3101
Every single one of these laws is Congress exercising their reasonable and (I thought) universally acknowledged authority to provide the president with the power to appoint officers that are not confirmed by the Congress. I just grabbed a few after some quick googling. Every department has this sort of authority.
RE: "But I'm still right. You've failed to show that the founders could possibly have intended to grant the president the power to appoint a "domestic violence" czar, for example."
The claim was that the granted Congress the power to recognize departments in the executive and they granted Congress the power to allow the president to staff those departments without a confirmation process.
RE: "Apparently, I give readers a lot more credit than you do. I don't believe they are sycophantic sheep who will mind-numbingly agree with me."
I don't think they are either. I think it's possible that some people might consider you an authority and not read the Constitution or google some U.S. code. That's what I'm concerned about. That doesn't make them sycophantic sheep - there's no need to sensationalize it, Leo.
Either way - your article is full of holes and exhibits very little concern for the Constitution itself and a lot of concern with your own vision and ideology.
RE: my own "The claim was that the granted Congress the power to recognize departments in the executive and they granted Congress the power to allow the president to staff those departments without a confirmation process."
This was poorly worded.
The claim wasn't that the founders forsaw a domestic violence czar. The claim is that the founders empowered Congress to allow the president to appoint officers. There are a lot of things the founders didn't forsee. It doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Maybe a lot of these czars are unnecessary. I certainly am glad van Jones is gone. The man didn't deserve the job. But the fact that specific cases are ill-conceived doesn't make the practice itself unconstitutional. It trivializes the Constitution to make up those rules as you go, and it sets a bad precedent of a cavalier attitude towards Constitutional provisions and limitations when you can write an article that just reinvents the plain English of the Constitution.
This is fun but I'm making my final comment here:
You say, "The claim is that the founders empowered Congress to allow the president to appoint officers. There are a lot of things the founders didn't forsee. It doesn't make it unconstitutional." Where I disagree is that I believe the founders empowered Congress to give the president power to appoint officers CONSISTENT WITH THE POWERS GRANTED THE PRESIDENT IN THE CONSTITUTION! If Congress can simply grant the president power to appoint whoever he wants to oversee whatever he wants, then the language of the Constitution is meaningless. Just because Congress passes laws to expand federal power in the executive branch, and is thereby complicit in this process, doesn't make it constitutional. It's they who are setting the rules as they go by ipso facto enlarging federal power. I believe the original intent and language of the Constitution should be enforced, and federal power LIMITED, not vastly expanded by any branch.
RE: "If Congress can simply grant the president power to appoint whoever he wants to oversee whatever he wants, then the language of the Constitution is meaningless."
I agree. I never made the claim they had that power.
RE: "Just because Congress passes laws to expand federal power in the executive branch, and is thereby complicit in this process, doesn't make it constitutional."
and "I believe the original intent and language of the Constitution should be enforced, and federal power LIMITED"
I agree on these too Leo. I'm glad we're ending with so much agreement... now why do I have the sinking feeling you're still missing the point???
LOL!! I feel the same about you, Daniel! Oh well...be blessed.
It was fun - you too Leo.
Interesting article and debate below. Lets not forget that Bush appointed more czars than Obama though, before we get our knickers in a twist.
Meat, you are correct, some of them have been approved. Manning up to admit I didn't check all 3 dozen or so before publishing. I'm making the correction...next time, let me know if you spot an error before slandering me a and I'll be happy to look into it...
RE: "I'm making the correction...next time, let me know if you spot an error before slandering me a and I'll be happy to look into it..."
That's fine in retrospect, Leo, but can't you understand how frustrating that is for readers who stumble across this piece of yours? And it's not just the approval of czars. I'm not a lawyer and it took me ten minutes to open the Constitution and google the relevant legislation to debunk your claim of unconstitutionality.
It's frustrating that the press takes so many shortcuts these days, as you have. It's frustrating to see the press substitute their opinions or their "sense" of what's legal or constitutional (or what they think should be legal or constitutional) for actual research on whether it is Constitutional.
Can't you see how your corner-cutting is frustrating to readers?
I'm a research analyst. If I put forward assertions like this without checking it out and citing my claims I'd be out of a job.
Let me ask you this question - did you reread the Constitution before writing this? Did you google any legislation to ascertain the legal basis for these decisions? Who did you call and interview before writing this? What contrary opinions did you seek out before writing this?
Or did you just sit at your desk and write?
Uncited, unresearched opinions are a dime a dozen, Leo. The public expects more than that from the press.
Could you describe your research process in preparing for this article? I'm not going to slander you and call you a liar like meatbrain did. But I'm not going to hide the fact that it's frustrating to read your articles.
I'd like to know when the term "czars" was popularized and why. As far as the Constitution goes I have to agree with Lysander Spooner when he wrote in "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" that the form of government we have is a result directly because of the Constitution or because it was powerless to stop it but none the less its unfit to exist.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!