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. ...