The Founding Fathers, fearful of vesting too much power in one aspect of government, took great care to find a balance.  In The Federalist 47, James Madison said that only by dispersing power equally among the three branches could liberty be preserved.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, or a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Recent presidential administrations have created a new position of power within the executive branch. They are popularly called “czars.”  They are special advisors to the President on any range of matters.

President Bush had his share and President Obama has expanded the list.  He has an energy czar, a health care czar, a czar for the environment and one for urban affairs, some 30 czars in all.

The modern Presidency is an extraordinarily complex job.  The President needs all the help he can get.  But now some want to know more about how much power these czars have and whether there is any oversight.    

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was the first to raise the question with the new administration.  Byrd wrote a letter to the President last February raising concerns about the czar system since these presidential advisers are not subject to confirmation by congress.

“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd wrote.  “As Presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president.”

Now others are raising similar concerns.   Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a Congressional hearing this week on the czar system to try to determine whether the advise-and-consent authority of the Congress was being usurped. 

The White House chose not to send a representative to testify, a decision Feingold called “unfortunate.”  

Czars have their defenders beyond the White House, or at least those who see the czars as potentially helpful in operating a complicated government.   Gary Bass, director of the nonpartisan OMB Watch, told the Wall Street Journal, “If these advisers turn out to be highly controlling and unaccountable, that would be very troubling, but in a government that is so large, they could also play a key coordinating role, and that would be good.”

One of these czars is of particular interest to West Virginia.  Carol Browner is in charge of the environment and climate change.  Is she playing a prominent role in determining new emission standards that will dramatically impact the coal industry? 

If so, she’s not answerable to the elected representatives of the country, as a cabinet secretary would be; nor can she be held accountable by the public for her decisions. 

Senator Byrd, in his letter to the President, detailed a brief history of what he identified as abuses of Presidential power.  “In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability,” Byrd wrote.

The kindly-worded letter was a firm reminder to the then-new President that the czar system is, at best, constitutionally questionable and, at worst, a mechanism for the abuse of executive power. 

Eight months later, it does not appear President Obama has taken the good counsel of the Constitutional conscience of the Senate.