ARE “CZARS” UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Are presidential appointed "czars" unconstitutional?

Abstract

The deaths of Nicholas II and his family marked the end of the czarist rule in Russia, only to be re-born in America under our current president. To date there have been above 30 czars, the exact number is hard to know because of the no accountability factor of these appointees despite there being major policy changes within the administration regarding the need for transparency and approval from the Senate. However, a point to consider is that within our current government there stand more czars than the Russia of old had in its entire antiquity. These appointees circumvent the norms and laws levied on all public and high ranking officials within the government, creating a black whirlpool in a government which is already wrapped in layers of bureaucracy, making it impossible for an average individual to access and understand policies which are to be levied on him and which will mostly affect only him. It is now critically important that the unelected bureaucrats known as 'czars' be ousted from the government. As realization is growing within the people of America and awareness is spreading, there is a movement calling out for all unelected and unapproved presidential appointees to either resign or prove their credentials for whatever particular fields they have been hired for. These are the measures which need to be taken to stop certain individuals within the current government from usurping power from authorized personnel with the credentials, education, background and capability required for their designated turf.

Table of Contents

Introduction2

Discussion3

Article II, Section 2 (Clause 2 & 3)4

Purpose of Congressional Approval For Department Heads5

Proposed Solutions7

Conclusions8

Are presidential appointed "czars" unconstitutional?

Introduction

In order to understand fully the impact, role and questionable lawfulness of the presidential appointees dubbed as 'czars' by the popular media, it is important to understand the origins of the term, and why was this and only this chosen for such officials.

Ironically, the term 'czar(s)' has Slavic origins, most specifically it is an abbreviation of one of history's most tyrannical leader, Caesar. 'Czar' evolved to be a formal title given to Russia's rulers up till the Russian revolution in 1917. However, history repeated itself with the term, as Czar Nicholas II of Russia also turned out to be such an oppressive ruler that by the end of his reign democracy was being greatly jostled for in a heretofore purely monarchial state. It thus leads the public or any individual whomsoever to forever relate the term itself as a bonfire of absolute oppressiveness and cruelty.

In present day America, this term has evolved further, now political appointees hired to work directly under the President, by the President and answerable to only the President are commonly labeled 'Czars.' These 'Czars' have the luxury of circumventing the system of checks and balances, codes of transparency and proper channels of recruitment and appointment, present in the United States of America's constitution, installed by the founding fathers. However, the question is remains, are these 'Czars' constitutional? Or, are they being set ...