Quotes on The President's Tsars, Czars, and Tzars

"He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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 provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Article II, Section II
National Archives and Records Administration
September 17, 1787
Library Topic

"The Constitution, for purposes of appointment, very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. But foreseeing that when offices became numerous and sudden removals necessary, this mode might be inconvenient, it was provided that, in regard to officers inferior to those specially mentioned, Congress might by law vest their appointment in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. That all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government about to be established under the Constitution were intended to be included within one or the other of these modes of appointment there can be but little doubt."

Justice Miller
U.S. Supreme Court
1878
Library Topic

"Czars were now a dime a dozen: the U.S. had Economic Czar James F. Byrnes, Production Czar Donald Nelson, Manpower Czar Paul McNutt, Food Czar Claude Wickard, Rubber Czar William Jeffers. But they were more like Grand Dukes than Czars: under their high-sounding titles, divided authority and lack of direction left them still snarled in invisible red tape."

TIME
February 5, 1943
Library Topic

"I do find all the talk about czars fascinating. If you read through newspapers and magazines in the 1920s and 1930s, you’ll find that the word 'dictator' was used pretty much exactly the way we use czar today (though obviously that wasn't its only usage). 'Dictator' had a negative connotation back then, but not solely negative. We had a 'dictator for steel' and a 'dictator' over at the NRA and elsewhere (and countless notables begged FDR to become a 'dictator'). For obvious reasons, 'dictator' went out of fashion by the 1940s. The use of czar seems to have filled its place. You can see the appeal as pretty much no one has a living memory of life under the Czars. It has a romantic sound and people don’t know its roots in the word Caesar (ditto Kaiser). Americans wouldn't tolerate a 'car king' or 'car dictator' or even a 'car Caesar.' But 'car czar' sounds both ironic and quaint."

Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online
December 15, 2008
Library Topic

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials."

Senator Robert C. Byrd
February 4, 2009
Library Topic

"The political usefulness of a czar is that it allows the President to underscore the importance of an issue. The czar does not acquire any powers not already resident in the office of the Executive, but does have more than the usual influence accorded a federal bureaucrat by virtue of his presumed access to the President. Thus, appointing a czar is a political and management device, nothing else. But too many czars spoil the soup. By press accounts the President has appointed over 20 of them. At the very least we need to differentiate these functions by title. And by distinguishing according to title, the President would be helped in that he could designate the specific degree to which a particular bureaucrat is special."

J. D. Foster
The Foundry
The Heritage Foundation
June 11, 2009
Library Topic

"The rationale for creating 'Czar' positions is that such individuals can rise above the usual DC turf wars, knock heads together, and make disparate bureaucracies achieve ambitious, overarching goals. Done well, this can demonstrate an administration's higher level of interest and dedication to an issue. But this ceases to be true when these exalted positions become so commonplace that it’s hard to see where ordinary bureaucracy ends and the extraordinary begins."

Wastebasket
Taxpayers for Common Sense
July 2, 2009
Library Topic

"As they say, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. When you look at the Czar proliferation (there’s a WMD Czar, too), you have to scratch your head and ask if perhaps we should re-think this approach. Instead of constantly creating new positions to coordinate our government's activities, might it make more sense to figure out how to make the existing structure perform better for the taxpayer?"

Wastebasket
Taxpayers for Common Sense
July 2, 2009
Library Topic

"The creation of 'czars,' particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of 'advise and consent,' greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions."

Library Topic

"Over the past several weeks, we've seen with increasing frequency and volume issues raised around the use of 'czars' by this Administration. Although some Members have asked serious questions around the makeup of the White House staff, the bulk of the noise you hear began first with partisan commentators, suggesting that this is somehow a new and sinister development that threatens our democracy. This is, of course, ridiculous."

Anita Dunn
The White House Blog
The White House
September 16, 2009
Library Topic

"Just to be clear, the job title 'czar' doesn't exist in the Obama Administration. Many of the officials cited by conservative commentators have been confirmed by the Senate. Many hold policy jobs that have existed in previous Administrations. And some hold jobs that involved coordinating the work of agencies on President Obama’s key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and green jobs, and building a new foundation for long-lasting economic growth.

But of course, it’s really the hypocrisy here that is noteworthy. Just earlier today, Darrell Issa, a Republican from California and one of the leaders in calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration’s use of 'czars', had to admit to Fox News that he had never raised any objections to the Bush Administration’s use of 'czars'. Many of these members who now decry the practice have called on Presidents in the past to appoint 'czars' to coordinate activities within the government to address immediate challenges. What is clear is that all of this energy going into these attacks could be used to have a constructive conversation about bringing this country together to address our challenges moving forward – and it doesn't take a 'czar' to bring that about!"

Anita Dunn
The White House Blog
The White House
September 16, 2009
Library Topic

"It is true that the President has created a small number of new White House positions to assist him in addressing important matters of great public concern, in critical areas such as the environment and healthcare. Neither the purpose nor the effect of these new positions is to supplant or replace existing federal agencies or departments, but rather to help coordinate their efforts and help devise comprehensive solutions to complex problems. Every President has structured his staff in this manner – subject to the limits on the number of White House employees established by Congress – to help him address the most pressing challenges facing his administration. This is, and always has been, the traditional role of White House staff."

Library Topic

“Moreover, none of the new White House or NSC positions violates the Appointments Clause. The Constitution requires that 'Officers of the United States' be nominated by the President 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.' … The Department of Justice has concluded, in an opinion drafted during the prior Administration, that a position is a 'federal office' if it is 'invested by legal authority with a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal Government.' … As described above, none of the White House or NSC positions identified by Senator Collins exercises any independent authority or sovereign power. Their one and only role is to advise the President.”

Library Topic

"I should note that while the term 'czar' has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed. I assume they have done so to show the seriousness of their effort to address a problem and their expectations of those they have asked to solve it. But historically, a czar is an autocrat, and it's not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government.

While there is a long history of the use of White House advisors and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate. It is important to understand the history for context, but often constitutional problems creep up slowly. It's not good enough to simply say, 'well, George Bush did it too.'"

Senator Russ Feingold
Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S Senate
October 6, 2009
Library Topic

"The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many 'czars' on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don't think that's the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?"

Senator Russ Feingold
Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S Senate
October 6, 2009
Library Topic

"The issue is not whether the proliferation of 'czars' amounts to a usurpation of power by the executive branch. Rather, the fundamental issue is how the rise of modern administrative government has put us in an unsolvable dilemma: whether policy should be made by technical experts, insulated from public accountability and control, or whether policy should be made by our elected representatives in Congress and the executive branch. The rise of government by bureaucrats–due to the delegation of power from Congress to administrative agencies, combined with the removal of those agencies from the President’s control–has given rise to efforts by Presidents from both parties to get the bureaucratic state under control through various mechanisms. The rise of 'czars' in the current administration is just another manifestation–albeit, an unfortunate one–of this phenomenon."

Matthew Spalding
United State Senate Committee on the Judiciary and The Heritage Foundation
October 6, 2009
Library Topic

"Individuals who work in the executive branch are sometimes called 'Czars' (or 'Tsars') when they have responsibility with respect to some problem or issue. Thus the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is sometimes called the Drug Tsar. The term has a popular, but as I will explain, not a legal, meaning."

John C. Harrison
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On the Constitution, United States Senate
October 6, 2009
Library Topic

"Although non-inferior officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, inferior officers need not be. Inferior officers may be appointed by the President or a head of department (or the courts of law, though that is not relevant here). Moreover, the President and department heads may also have the authority to hire non-officer employees. As a result, it may be difficult to determine whether some specific government post is an office within the meaning of the Appointments Clause or an employment whose incumbent may not exercise so-called Buckley power. This difficulty arises specifically with respect to Section 105(a) of title 3 of the United States Code, which authorizes the President to appoint individuals to assist him. ... From the face of the statute it is not entirely clear whether Congress meant to give the President power to appoint inferior officers, which under the Appointments Clause it certainly may do, or the power to hire employees, which it also may do. As it says that the President may 'appoint . . . employees,' Section 105(a) uses either the term 'appoint' or the term 'employees' in a sense other than that word’s technical sense with respect to the Appointments Clause, but it is not clear which one. Whether an individual like the Chief of Staff to the President or the White House Press Secretary is an inferior officer or an employee is thus something of a nice question."

John C. Harrison
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On the Constitution, United States Senate
October 6, 2009
Library Topic

"Whether an individual in the executive branch who does not serve on the White House staff is eligible to exercise significant government authority, and if so the extent to which that person must be supervised by executive officers other than the President, similarly depends on the applicable Appointments Clause principles. Any individual in the executive branch, whether or not called a 'Czar,' who claims to exercise power in a way inconsistent with the Appointments Clause acts without legal warrant."

John C. Harrison
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On the Constitution, United States Senate
October 6, 2009
Library Topic

"I’m sure many people here will remember the moment in the classic story 'Fiddler on the Roof' when one of the citizens of Anatevka, Russia asks the local rabbi, 'Rabbi, is there a prayer for the czar?' And the local rabbi answers, 'Yes, my son, there is—it is, God bless and keep the czar, far away from us.' May I paraphrase that prayer this morning and ask that God bless and keep the title of czar, forevermore away from the American government."

Senator Joseph Lieberman
Senate Committee On Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
October 22, 2009
Library Topic

"As I have stated before, this is not a partisan issue; this is not a political issue. It is an issue of institutional imperative and Constitutional prerogative.

It is also a question of effective management. The proliferation of czars has created two separate tracks of top management within our federal government.

On one track, we have Cabinet-level leaders with defined roles and assigned duties.

On the second track, we have 'czars' with fuzzy roles and loosely defined functions.

These separate tracks of management authority can create duplication of effort, dilution of responsibilities and focus, and management dysfunction."

Senator Susan Collins
Senate Committee On Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
October 22, 2009
Library Topic

"Although presidents have always had advisers and confidants in the White House, the formal White staff was established in 1939 when Congress gave Franklin Roosevelt authority to create the Executive Office of the President and hire six formal White House staffers. The expected role of the White House staff was articulated by the classic statement of Franklin Roosevelt’s Brownlow Committee in 1937:

These aides would have no power to make decisions or issue instructions in their own right. They would not be interposed between the president and the heads of his departments. They would not be assistant presidents in any sense. . . . They would remain in the background, issue no orders, make no decisions, emit no public statements. . . . [T]hey would not attempt to exercise power on their own account. They should be possessed of high competence, great physical vigor, and a passion for anonymity.

Despite the fact that these precepts have gone by the wayside and the White House staff now includes hundreds of people, some of whom enjoy high public visibility and wield significant power, the norms established in the Brownlow Committee Report still define the ideal for White House aides."

James P. Pfiffner
Senate Committee On Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
October 22, 2009
Library Topic

"Over the following decades, presidents initiated major changes in the size and scope of their staffs. Dwight Eisenhower created the position of chief of staff to the president and began to institutionalize the White House. John Kennedy, after the Bay of Pigs debacle, told McGeorge Bundy to put together 'a little State Department' in the White House that would consider national security policy from his own perspective rather than through the narrower lenses of the Departments of State and Defense. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, (national security advisor) has played major roles in every presidential administration since then. It reached its zenith of power when Henry Kissinger held that position at the same time he was Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration.

When Richard Nixon came to office, his distrust of the executive branch bureaucracies led him to expand considerably the White House staff. In addition to increasing the number of White House staffers in the White House Office, he created the position of domestic policy adviser and designated John Ehrlichmann to be its director. Subsequent presidents have continued to use these ... White House positions and to create new ones to meet their needs."

James P. Pfiffner
Senate Committee On Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
October 22, 2009
Library Topic

"In recent years, as the usage of czar-like personnel has become politically controversial, the imprecision of the term has grown. Generally, the moniker is applied to presidential assistants that have been assigned authority over a specific and important policy portfolio. Beyond this relatively amorphous definition, however, there is no clear consensus on what precisely constitutes a czar, whether by the presidents who appoint them, the media who cover them, or the scholars who study them."

José D. Villalobos
Justin S. Vaughn
Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association
September 2, 2010
Library Topic

"The Framers were wary of expanding executive power because it tends to reduce accountability and conceal fault. Shielded by executive privilege, czars may be immune from the checks and balances system, weakening transparency and accountability in the executive branch. When government accountability becomes questionable and fault is concealed, America’s primary constitutional principles are called into question."

Jacqueline M. Weyand
Northwestern University
2010
Library Topic

"Many conservatives holding their breath during the 2010 lame duck session were relieved that the progressives didn't pass as much damaging legislation as feared. Unfortunately, they celebrated too quickly. Just as everyone was settling down for Christmas, all those unaccountable Obama Czars were finally able to do what they were hired to do; implement regulations that Congress could never pass as legislation. These regulations are no longer just strangling our economy. They are destroying it."

Michael Coffman
The New American
January 28, 2011
Library Topic

"Candidate Obama said it was wrong for a president to consolidate power in the White House, but President Obama followed a different path, bringing more power into his office and at times taking it away from Congress and the American people. The best example is the 'czars' the president has established: 39 people who are in charge of specific policy offices, appointed by the president, but in an end run most of them not confirmed by the U.S. Senate. As House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has noted, there is a Great Lakes czar, a green jobs czar, an urban affairs czar, a TARP Czar, a stimulus accountability czar and a car czar and more. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says that 'the President ... with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... public Ministers and Consuls ... and all other Officers of the United States.' Almost none of these 39 appointees have faced the Senate."

Pete Du Pont
The Wall Street Journal
February 17, 2011
Library Topic

"The other problem with czars is that cabinet secretaries often resent the dilution of their policy advising authority. In every administration, cabinet secretaries jealously guard their authority and seek access to the president. This is where policy czars have the advantage of proximity; they have the opportunity to see the president much more often than can cabinet secretaries, who have many departmental and implementation duties they must carry out. So the biggest problem with so many czars in the White House is the question of who is in charge of a given policy area. Who has the lead in developing policy alternatives for the president’s consideration?"

James P. Pfiffner
GMU School of Public Policy Research Paper, No. 2011-01
George Mason University
2011
Library Topic
Library Topic

More About This Topic...

Click thumbnails below to view links

Quote Page

Quotes on presidential czars from columnists, economists, and political experts.

Commentary or Blog Post

"When a president wants to signal that an issue really matters, there is nothing like a czar. President-elect Barack Obama is making clear that many issues matter to him.

The idea is to have someone in the White House with the president's ear to coordinate policy and give the topic the weight it deserves. Such a post gives an issue prominence, allows for coordination among agencies and...

James points out that Obama's top bureaucrats--called "czars" by the media--are nothing new, citing the extensive executive branches of FDR, Nixon, and George W. Bush.

Not only has the notion of President Obama's policy "czars" prompted controversy, but several of the czars themselves have been implicated in scandal.

Following the controversial budget deal in early 2011, this piece notes how President Obama failed to keep his end of the bargain.

Albert cautions that empowering the executive branch without the permission of the Senate looks more like the British parliamentary system than the republic the American founders imagined.

Given the many czar positions that have now been created, however, this piece goes on to ponder whether the aforementioned goal is actually being obstructed rather than achieved.

Coffman worries that Obama's policy executives have implemented thousands of pages of regulation, much of which is without the oversight or approval of Congress.

"A liberal senator on Wednesday questioned President Barack Obama's policy 'czars' after the senior advisers have taken heat mostly from Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sent a letter to the president requesting the White House release information regarding the 'roles and responsibilities' of the 'czars.' The Senate Judiciary Committee member also requested that the...

Sarlin outlines the stories and credentials of the Obama Administration's most notable policy "czars", including officials who oversaw the financial bailout and U.S. economic regulatory platforms.

As a part of the continuing resolutions to keep the federal government running, Republicans successfully added an amendment defunding President Obama's senior advisors on top policy issues like heath care and energy.

Rothkopf compares the long secession of Russian Czars from 1613 until 1917 to the Obama Administration's many policy "czars".

The White House's record number of policy chiefs, or "czars", has launched controversy in the media and in Congress.

Unlike his presidential predecessors, Obama's first months in office are reported to focus more on appointing policy "czars" than assembling a cabinet.

Cantor writes that the infiltration of policy "czars" in the Obama Administration has placed far too much emphasis on the executive branch.

Erbe believes this type of executive position epitomizes a lack of respect for budget or accountability.

On paper, they are special advisers, chairmen of White House boards, special envoys and Cabinet agency deputies, asked by the president to guide high-priority initiatives.

"Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy 'czars' is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of the so-called czars, officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental,...

The White House positions aren't subject to congressional oversight, which raises concerns about balance of power.

The political usefulness of a czar is that it allows the President to underscore the importance of an issue/

Government officials engage in a debate over whether or not the White House's policy "czars" truly disrupt the American system of Checks and Balances.

Jonah Goldberg uses this brief blog post to describe the origins and historical connotations of the word "czar."

This post describes how several Republican representatives sought to reign in President Obama's use of the czar position.

Healy fears that the Right's focus on eliminating the White House's "czars" distracts from the larger issue: a corrosive trend of unapproved and largely unaccountable presidential advisors.

Byrd is said to draw from his long career in the Senate as a warning against the dangers of unapproved officials.

"A pattern of governance has emerged in Washington that departs substantially from that envisaged in our Constitution. Under our basic concept of governance: (1) a president and vice president are elected; and (2) the departments of government are staffed by constitutional officers including secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and others who are nominated by the president and...

Kevin Sholette seeks to determine whether or not Feinberg's authority is constitutionally sound.

Dunn implied that those who questioned the administration's use of czars were hypocritical, and were only taking an accusatory stance because of the party in the White House.

Du Pont points out that the Obama Administration's prolific number of policy "czars" runs directly counter to Obama's campaign rhetoric

Chart or Graph

Popular political cartoonist Bob Englehart pokes fun at the ever-evolving layers of executive bureaucracy.

This chart lists 28 of President Obama's czars and their official titles. The confirmed salaries of some of the czars - ranging from $98,000 to $172,000 - are especially interesting.

This easy-to-read chart displays the official titles of Obama's "Czars", revealing which have been confirmed by the Senate--and the many which have not.

A list of the few Obama Administration "Czars" that have actually received Senate Confirmation, as of Spring 2010.

Analysis Report White Paper

We discuss what exactly a czar is, why presidents have turned to them with increasing frequency in recent decades, and the relationship between the ascendancy of czars and the constitutional underpinnings of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Americans have always mistrusted executive power, but only recently has 'the unitary executive' emerged as the bogeyman of American politics.

Increased doctrinal room for a president to realize his political program by using the agency form will decrease his incentives to find politically and legally opaque ways to work such influence from the White House.

After examining White House domination of policy making in the Obama presidency, the chapter will analyze the friction with the cabinet and Congress caused by Obama’s appointment of many White House 'czars.'

Recognizing the recent rise of the presidential czar position and the ambiguity surrounding it, Jacqueline Weyand sets out to trace the history and legal precedent for executive czars in America.

This edition of the PRG Report finds presidency scholars exploring the world of unilateral (or nearly unilateral) presidential powers.

"This paper discusses these questions, in an admittedly preliminary way, with reference to historical practice and the first six months of the Obama administration."

Video/Podcast/Media

This news clip expresses Representative Darrell Issa's concern over the fact that many of the President's czars are not accountable to Congress. Issa also raises questions about the lack of transparency concerning the payroll of the President's czars.

Dan Mitchell, a fellow at the Cato Institute, responds to the concern that unapproved administrative appointees are overseeing massive federal tasks and funds.

The numerous unapproved policy bureaucrats in the Obama Administration can be difficult to track. Pajamas Media has put together a helpful video with descriptions of 36 chief government wonks.

Press Secretary Gibbs avoids directly responding to concerns over Senator Feingold's letter to President Obama. Feingold's letter voiced unease at the growing number of "Czars" in the Obama Administration.

In this video segment Spalding details how the rise of Czars in American government--unelected bureaucrats with great regulatory power--pose a grave threat to the liberty of all Americans and fly in the face of the nature of the Constitution.

Primary Document

This cause came on for consideration of appellant's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and appellees' opposition thereto, and the court heard argument of counsel.

This paper features an extensive list of President Obama's czars. The document creates an individual profile for each czar detailing their job description, past experience, and in some instances, their individual salary.

Although generally regarded as a case concerned with election campaign funds, this case established some important guidelines in regards to the "Appointments Clause" of the Constitution.

In this piece, Senator Hutchinson opines that the increased use of czars in the Obama administration is a dangerous usurpation of "separation of powers."

This case, along with others which dealt with the "Appointments Clause," is helpful in determining the legality and authority of presidential czars.

Speaking to the Senate, Spalding provides a brief modern history of Congress' delegation of power to a group of technical, insulated bureaucrats.

In this document Harry Truman establishes "the Office of Defense Mobilization."

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt established the "Office of Censorship." This document describes the establishment of the office and also appoints "Byron Price" as the "Director of Censorship," (or Czar) over this agency.

The article gives information on the circumstances surrounding Chester Davis' appointment to the "Food Czar" position and explains what his job would entail.

In response to a request by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, John Harrison provided legal advice on the "employment of so-called 'Czars' within the executive branch."

This letter to President Franklin Roosevelt documents the resignation of Chester Davis, FDR's "Food Czar."

The Counsel of the President responds to Senator Feingold's concerns over Administrative "Czars". Mr. Craig claims that such criticisms of executive positions are misinformed, since all positions are accountable and transparent.

This case revolves around the Constitution's "Appointments Clause" and discusses what constitutes a "'principal' or an 'inferior' officer."

Expressing concern over the many czars appointed during the early months of the Obama administration, Senator Russ Feingold sought to examine their constitutionality.

This link features a hearing on the position of czars in the American presidency.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security. This document provides his remarks at the swearing-in ceremony of the Department's first czar, Tom Ridge.

Given the rising concern over drug abuse, President Reagan created the "Drug Abuse Policy Office" and appointed Carlton Turner as the first "drug czar."

Senator Byrd writes a cautionary letter to President Obama regarding what Byrd views as the policy "czars" threat to government and American checks and balances.

Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, questions the number of 'czars' within the Executive Office.

Following an intense budget battle in early 2011, President Obama signed H.R. 1473. This statement was released in conjunction with the signing and declares the President's rejection of the budget cuts which defunded several of his czars (Section 2262).

This document describes the committee's recommendations for the President, including information on the type and number of assistants he should have.

In this testimony, Bradley Patterson, a member of the Brookings Institution, makes six points about the history, legality, and official meaning of the term "czar."

Associate law professor Samahon delivers an address to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with concern to the constitutionality of Obama's czar appointments.

The Constitution of the United States established the federal governmental system currently in place with three branches of government. The premise of executive privilege developed from the separation of powers clause.

This piece from TIME describes the internal bickering and "lack of direction" that FDR's administration encountered because of the czar issue.

This case dealt with whether or not the "Commissioner of Pensions" and his under-officers were officers of the United States.

After the Watergate scandal, the Court held that separation of powers and confidentiality are not sufficient arguments for permitting absolute, unqualified presidential privilege.

This vintage newspaper clipping describes the creation of the "Office of Defense Mobilization" and the appointment of Charles Wilson as its czar.

Books

Link