Editor’s note: Four local bloggers, featured on the Globe’s Web site, www.joplinglobe.com, weigh in this week on the following question:

The federal government

has 13 czars overseeing many parts of American life. Do

you think czars are appropriate/and or necessary?

Czarist America: Unbridled, unconstitutional appointments

For most of us, the word czar conjures up images of Russian rulers with tall, furry hats and curled mustaches. While Russia’s 1917 revolution brought an end to its oppression of the Slavic peoples, here in the West, president-appointed czars are in vogue.

There are currently 15 to 21 czars operating in America. Since the term “czar” is usually media denoted and not official, the number varies depending on who you ask. The mystery and muddiness surrounding the title is only where the head scratching begins.

Postwar America saw the rise of czars as important policy implementers for the president. Nixon was the first to get a little czar crazy and appointed both an energy czar and an inflation czar. And contrary to popular belief, he also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe. Most presidents have had two or three czars carrying out their will while in office — but the rapid increase in czar appointments by President Barack Obama has raised more than a few eyebrows.

There are now as many, if not more, czars than Cabinet members working for Obama. Czars, unlike Cabinet members, are not approved by Congress and most czars answer only to the president and his administration. None, that I know of, are accountable to Congress. Herein lies the controversy.

The Constitution is clear when it comes to presidential appointments. Article II says, “… he (the President) 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.”

According to the Chicago Tribune’s political blog, “The Swamp,” some current recognized czars and positions are: executive-pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg; regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein; health-care reform czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle; efficiency czar, Jeffrey Zients; Southwest border czar, Alan Bersin; energy czar, Carol Browner; urban-affairs czar, Adolfo Carrion; economics czar, Paul Volcker/Lawrence Summers; drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske; car czar, Steve Rattner; bank-bailout czar, Herb Allison; Iran czar, Dennis Ross; government-performance czar, unfilled; Mideast czar, George Mitchell; Afghanistan/Pakistan czar, Richard Holbrooke; cyber-security czar, to be named; distressed auto communities czar, Ed Montgomery; climate-change czar, Todd Stern.

Obama’s promised transparency in government seems unlikely given his unbridled expansion of presidential power. Like executive-order Bush before him, he appears to have little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. Congress needs to reclaim its rightful power of appointment and put an end to “czar rule” in America, once and for all.

Jessica Schreindl served as the 2008-09 opinion-page editor for The Chart, Missouri Southern State University’s newspaper. More of her opinions can be found on her blog “Redheaded Politics.”

Czars unnecessary