As a premise, let's just all agree that an Executive appointment of any officer is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Let's also say that these "czars" are something other than such "officers" since they are appointed by the President WITHOUT the advice and consent of the Senate. For example, the "pay czar" (whatever the fuck that "title" might actually mean), Kenneth Feinberg, recently made news by issuing some alleged "order" limiting executive pay for TARP-receiving companies. He was never subjected to Senate "scrutiny" of any kind. That kind of raises the question. What actual legal authority do any of these guys have if they are not actual "officers"? I do not know the answer. I am looking at it. I have come upon THIS, however, as it bears on the question of the so-called "pay czar's" authority to promulgate any rule or alleged "order" affecting remuneration for any TARP receiving companies: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/ec ifr fr web 6.9.09tg164.pdf (Congress passed a miasma of laws that get promulgated by the Executive via rules and regulations -- all normal operation of government type stuff even if extraordinary in its scope in this case). I BELIEVE it is possible that the "czar" is actually the so-called "special master" who is answerable to the Treasury Secretary and thus answerable to the President. This would mean that there ARE some actual checks and balances involved in this mess even if the White House pretends otherwise. Does anybody have ANY sound analysis if why anybody should give any legal credence to anything "ordered" by any such "czar"? Update: It looks like the "pay czar" is INDEED the so-called "Special Master:" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...czars-rulings-compensation-bailed-executives/ So, at least I got that part right so far.