What is a czar?

[JohnnyLingo]

Wikipedia says that in America, a czar is "a certain high-level official who directs or oversees federal operations on a given topic."

Apparently the first time the term was used was in 1973, when "a Time Magazine article... [referred] to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration."

My question is this: are there checks and balances that apply to these individuals? Is there any rationale in the Constitution for such a position?

Glenn Beck argues that Obama's many czars gives him "unprecedented power with virtually no oversight."

Is that a fair accusation? Does it make sense that U.S. presidents are and have been abusing the concept of a czar to do what they want without dealing with checks and balances?

[Non Sequitur]

You know they're not really czars, right?

[TripletDaddy]

You know they're not really czars, right?

I always assumed they were tsars.

[Indy Coug]

I always assumed they were tsars.

I think they've expanded the definition to include all hemophiliacs of Russian descent.

[Solon]

I think they've expanded the definition to include all hemophiliacs of Russian descent.

It's a version of the word "Caesar." (as is kaiser)

- originally a kind of salad, I think. Or a palace somewhere in Nevada.

[JohnnyLingo]

It's a version of the word "Caesar." (as is kaiser)

- originally a kind of salad, I think. Or a palace somewhere in Nevada.

I must admit I'm surprised to see you blow the questions off with a joke.

[TripletDaddy]

It's a version of the word "Caesar." (as is kaiser)

- originally a kind of salad, I think. Or a palace somewhere in Nevada.

I thought "kaiser" was a reference to the delish baked goods...I assumed that traditionally, only royalty was allowed to eat them, hence the term "kaiser roll."

[Solon]

I must admit I'm surprised to see you blow the questions off with a joke.

What question? What's a "czar"? Other than a political term for "head-person in charge of something", or some type of "ombudsman", I guess the word has a lot of meanings.

Didn't utah have a "Porn Czar" for awhile? That's the job I want.

[JohnnyLingo]

What question? What's a "czar"? Other than a political term for "head-person in charge of something", or some type of "ombudsman", I guess the word has a lot of meanings.

These questions:

Is that a fair accusation? Does it make sense that U.S. presidents are and have been abusing the concept of a czar to do what they want without dealing with checks and balances?

If you'd rather not answer, that's fine.

[Indy Coug]

Ultimately, can't the constitutionality of anything the czars do be challenged in court? I'm not sure how checks and balances are completely thwarted here.

[All-American]

Ave Caesar

[JohnnyLingo]

Ultimately, can't the constitutionality of anything the czars do be challenged in court? I'm not sure how checks and balances are completely thwarted here.

I don't know; I've looked but I can't find any examples where this has occurred.

[Indy Coug]

I don't know; I've looked but I can't find any examples where this has occurred.

Well, first you would have to com e up with an instance where something unconstitutional happened and then chronicle what happened in response.

[Levin]

Ultimately, can't the constitutionality of anything the czars do be challenged in court? I'm not sure how checks and balances are completely thwarted here.

Hard to see how they would be acting "unconstitutionally." The kinds of decisions they make are at the heartland of executive discretion in seeing that the laws are faithfully executed.

What's the difference between a czar and a cabinet post? A czar is kind of a de facto cabinet post, whom the President tells to ensure his policies get carried out on his czary subject. That's what cabinet members do. I fail to see anything wrong with them -- at all.

So let's see, Obama doesn't have a drug czar -- what gives? Well, I guess Obama just has to tell DOJ, FBI, Dept. of Ed, FDA himself instead of just telling the drug czar to tell all those people what he wants. It's an efficient mechanism to me to ensure that the laws are executed in accordance with the President's wishes -- and that is exactly the role the Constitution gives the President. Now, if the President executes a law unfaithfully, well there you have a court challenge saying the statute doesn't provide for this and that. But that's not unconstitutional -- it's not legal. Happens ALL the time -- challenges to presidential execution of the law. Here, I have an example for you: Bush administration's oil and gas leases in Utah at the end of his administration. Those were given at Bush's direction, executing the law that gave him the power to do so. The challenge is that Bush overstepped the law in doing so. Million more examples -- any challenge to an agency action, really.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I must admit I'm surprised to see you blow the questions off with a joke.

I thought it was ok to joke about anything. Cancer jokes ok, jokes about czars not ok, got it.