Here’s a question worth answering: why does President Obama appear so eager to appoint “czars,” while leaving positions requiring Senate confirmation unfilled?

Recently, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on the White House’s unprecedented appointment of “czars.” Apparently, the White House was too busy to send a witness to testify on the constitutionality of its practice.

By definition, these czars are special advisers to the President, serving outside of the scope of congressional oversight. Roughly thirty-two such advisers have been appointed by the President, ranging from the “Car Czar” to the “Pay Czar” to the “Health Care Czar.” Meanwhile, the White House has only nominated candidates for 243 of the 385 executive branch positions that require Senate confirmation.

The U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 2, provides that Congress can vest in the President the authority to appoint inferior officers. However, serious questions exist as to whether Obama has vested authority in these czars which should only be placed in persons confirmed by the Senate, through the Constitutional advice and consent process.

Constitutional checks and balances may seem passé to some, yet they exist for a reason: people create policy. With such weighty responsibilities, could the character and credentials of the individuals who have the President’s ear be of greater importance? We have reason to ask whether Obama’s appointed czars could be confirmed by the Senate, if they were nominated for one of the open jobs in the administration. At the very least, the President’s quiet appointment of powerful czars begs for heightened scrutiny and greater transparency.

A brief perusal indicates that some of these appointees have little in common with mainstream America:

• Carol Browner, the “energy/climate czar”: Prior to her appointment in the Obama Administration, Browner was a member of Socialist International and helped lead the group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance,” and had demanded that developed countries shrink their economies in order to reduce global warming.

• Nancy-Ann De Parle, the “health care czar”: De Parle is now the White House point person for health care reform. But prior to 2001, she earned $6.6 million as a director of several companies while they were being investigated and fined for alleged kickbacks, engaging in illegal billing schemes, and violations of federal quality standards.

• John Holdren, the “science czar”: Holdren advises on science and technology issues, including related energy and environment matters. In 1977, he co-authored Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment, a book containing several controversial statements, suggesting that coercive population control measures could be sustained under the Constitution. He believes that the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and is an advocate of economically repressive measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [Editors Note: unlike the other examples Rep. Akin cites, Mr. Holdren was confirmed by the Senate in March.]

Additionally, Van Jones (former “green jobs czar”) and Steve Rattner (former “cars czar”) both removed themselves from White House positions after controversy emerged regarding their past statements or activities.

The extent of authority and power of these czars is hard to fully comprehend. The impact of their daily decisions is uncertain. Yet it’s clear they’ve been equipped with a taxpayer-funded position to have an impact on policy, and support the wishes of the White House.

It’s time for Congress to check the growth of powerful and unaccountable positions within the Executive Branch and insist on appropriate transparency from the president who promised so much sunshine as a candidate, and has thus far delivered so little.

Republican Rep. Todd Akin represents the Second District of Missouri.