The President’s Czars by Sollenberger and Rozell. Book Review

The President’s Czars by Sollenberger and Rozell
Name
Course
Instructor:
Date
Introduction
The book analyzes the places and position of the presidential czars in a legal and constitutional basis and unlike many scholars who place more emphasis on the strong presidency to ensure government efficiency. A czar is an executive branch official exercising final decision-making authority, yet they have not been confirmed by the Senate. The number of czars in government has increased among recent presidents, as the presidents increasingly seek to bypass legislative obstruction. Despite czars being high level government officials, their appointment partly shields them from congressional, Senate, and public oversight. Presidents exercise presidential authority in a way that advances their agenda and vision for the country where law and politics are closely intertwined and there are differences in how they rely on executive privilege and the power to nominate to set the agenda. In the review of Sollenberger and Rozell ‘s book, I will highlight their objections on presidential czars, specially focusing on how this violates the violation of separation of powers, the Appointments Clause as well as the lack of oversight and accountability, which are concerns in the presidential appointment of czars and raise questions about the constitutionality of presidential czars.[Mitchel A .Sollenberger and Mark J Rozell., The President's Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2012), 7.]
Summary
The authors first defined presidential czars and explored this phenomenon to evaluate presidents used presidential power. The detailed historical account of different presidents appointing czars into their administrations further highlights how American presidents have increasingly relied on presidential power in the modern period. Then, the authors pointed out that the extensive use of executive czars is problematic, and they suggested that the need for reforming the executive to avoid executive abuse linked to presidential czars with too much power. Reforms are necessary to restore the balance of power and strengthen the separation of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Statutory limitations on appointing officials, the congressional reporting requirements, and oversight transferring staff among departments are other useful reforms.
Concerns about the power of unconfirmed czars are based on the belief and observation that there is scrutiny on their appointment and attempts to weaken the checks and balances. Under the Obama administration delegating policy making authority to czars who were not scrutinized meant that the legislature exercise less oversight power over appointments. Obama “He cherry picked certain offices to characterize allegations of too many czars as being overstated as false”. For the Senate confirmed key executive officials there is oversight and focus accountability based on their previous records and experiences as there is scrutiny of their positions .[Kenneth S. Lowande and Sidney M. Milkis, "“We Can’T Wait”: Barack Obama, Partisan Polarization And The Administrative Presidency", The Forum 12, no. 1 (2014): 17-18.] [Sollenberger and Rozell, 21.]
There have been executive branch czars since the George Washington presidency, but the power of these czars has increased gradually among modern presidents from FDR’s administration onwards. The growth of executive czars is closely linked to changes in the presidency, allowing the office holders to sidestep the democratic controls (Sollenberger and Rozell 21). “ President Wilson acted unilaterally … Congress provided a measure of political and legal cover as it delegated to the president reorganization authority by way of the Overman Act”. President Wilson expanded the executive structure and in doing so set a precedent where presidents could bypass congress and Senate confirmation when appointing officials to agencies and positions (Sollenberger and Rozell 51).[Sollenberger and Rozell,51.]
Increasingly as the presidents sought the power and authority to reorganize the bureaucratic system, there has been resistance from congressional members. Thus, presidents have resulted to appointing the czars unilaterally. For the Obama administration the czar responsible for the federal bailout of the auto industry stands out, as there was perception that the president was keen on baling out the industry but not the average American. While there were less than ten czars in the Clinton administration this increased to more than 20 in the Obama administration. Congress gives the President power to create new offices while power is delegate to senate- approved officials. However, with the president exercising decree power they appoint those who are not authorized by congress as one way to maintain administrative and bureaucratic control.
Critique
The authors rightly criticize the presidential czar appointments as they undermine the constitution and they violate the separation of powers. The system of balance and checks is important to hold officials accountable and ensure transparency since there are limits to the powers of the government. However, the practice of appointing czars who exercise too much power without congressional oversight has resulted in the officials’ using authority and power not delegated to them. Sollenberger and Mark Rozell place too much emphasis on Senate confirmation when defining who is a czar and there are others who have been considered czars beyond the authors’ interpretation. The czars are influential in policy making sometimes more than the confirmed appointees, and the czars have at times exercised too much power unlike the Senate confirmed officials. At the same time, President Bush and Obama focused more on executive privilege to conceal some information even if this resulted in the abuse of presidential power.[Justin S. Vaughn, "The Contemporary Presidency reconsidering Presidential Policy Czars", Presidential Studies Quarterly 44, no. 3 (2014): 524.]
The book provides a background on how the appointments of czars became common and evaluate perceptions about the scope of the executive branch. In doing so, they provide a background on how changes in the political system has i...