I just think the over-use of the term is diluting the discussion. We can and should be concerned about this WH, or any other for that matter, over-stepping their constitutional boundaries.
When we start using the same terms to describe the un-confirmed special advisers with policy portfolios (unconstitutional and illegal) as the people who face senate scrutiny (however thin) and confirmation the issue becomes confused and the heart of the argument is lost. We either need to clean up the discussion or we need to come up with a better name for these unconfirmed advisers and change the conversation altogether.
Absolutely right. I can't use the "More Czars than the Romanovs" until I have time to go through the list of alleged czars and verify which ones actually ARE unconfirmed. I expect to have that much free time right after the 2010 election.
“When we start using the same terms to describe the un-confirmed special advisers with policy portfolios (unconstitutional and illegal) as the people who face senate scrutiny (however thin) and confirmation the issue becomes confused and the heart of the argument is lost.”
Perhaps the argument that officials with absolutely no relation to Congress, either prior to or during their tenure, are a special problem is lost. And certainly, we need to highlight the danger promised by members of the executive branch who operate without the least reference to a Constitutional mandate.
However, on the flip side, it’s not just Czars that operate extra-Constitutionally. We shouldn’t allow ourselves, for the sake of precision, to slide into defending officials that have gotten a nod from Congress and that base their power in some part on federal statutes, just because they’re not technically Czars. Especially since no one’s holding a gun to Congress’ head to insure it sticks to the Constitution, let alone the people Congress in turn hands its repsonsibilities.
There is a wide gap between the law as laid down by Congress or the Courts, and the law in practice, as it’s executed by even such old and venerable offices as Attourney General, let alone the “Green Jobs Czar”. There’s a body of theory known as “legal positivism” appropriate to the subject. Maybe we should come up with a term that anyone who follows its precepts, be they technically “Constitutional” or not. “Czar” is a pretty decent one, since it already has a sour connotation in the public’s ears.