My colleague Jim Musser sends this note concerning the White House czars:

The “czars”, regardless of which party appoints them raise constitutional/legal issues. While I do not doubt the president’s authority to hire those he thinks best for his advisors, the czars are not the same as the guy who carries his baggage or even the White House counsel. These are independent policymakers operating outside the constitutionally envisioned framework of cabinet secretaries. It is less a left-right issue than a question of presidential power versus congressional oversight. There is a reason why Members of Congress should want to keep oversight authority over the czars since the czars are making policy and spending public monies. In my view, Congress has an obligation to oversee those spending from the public purse.
It seems that many of these folks are appointed czar, by either party, because they could not successfully withstand the scrutiny of the Senate confirmation process. That process matters and was wisely put into place to make sure the executive branch did not become too imperial. It does not get much more imperial than the czar.