For most people the word "czar" conjures up images of that Russian history class you dropped after three weeks during sophomore year of college. To some Capitol Hill lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, the term "czar" — and the perceptions attached to it — are beginning to raise serious questions about the separation of powers in the federal government.

During his time in office, President Obama has placed a series of "czars" in position to oversee and influence policy on a wide range of issues. Hot topics ranging from Mideast Peace (former Senator George Mitchell) to Domestic Violence (policy advocate Lynn Rosenthal) have been graced with their own czars. Some of these officials have been confirmed by Congress, but others have been unilaterally placed in power by the White House.

Of course this is nothing new. The appointment of czars goes back at least to the Wilson Administration, and presidents of both parties have taken advantage of these positions as a means to steer policy. Most critics of the practice come from the legislative branch, with some lawmakers claiming that the presence of czars is a violation of Article II of the Constitution.

In what is a completely unshocking development, the current political climate seems to be turning this into not only a fight between the legislative and executive branch (which at the very least could be taken as a constructive debate about the Constitution) but also (yet another) "culture war" involving everyone from Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold to Glenn Beck. Such is politics in 2009.

Feingold, a Democrat, held a hearing Tuesday on the role of czars in the executive branch. Referring to constituents who raised concerns about the czars — why not "tsars"? — at town hall meetings this past summer, Feingold (who is running for re-election in 2010) had said in calling for the hearing, "I felt that these people have a point...There is a serious constitutional issue here, and that is whether the appointment of ‘czars' is an end-run around the advice and consent process."

The panel he convened this week, officially entitled "Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch Czars," featured a witness list made up of heavy-hitting constitutional scholars. (The New York Times has an excellent, if wordy, recap of the session.)

Responding to criticisms from both inside and outside her own party, Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, posted a blog entry on the White House website defending the czars and taking their critics to task. "Although some Members have asked serious questions about the makeup of the White House staff, the bulk of noise you hear began first with partisan commentators suggesting that this is somehow a new and sinister development that threatens our democracy," she wrote.

Dunn went on to single out Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander (R), one of the more vocal critics of the Obama czars, as someone who didn't seem to have a problem supporting Bush administration czars and yet now appears to be concerned about the role of czars in a Democratic administration. Responding on the floor of the Senate, Alexander reiterated that he and his colleagues "take seriously our responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution to confirm officials who manage the government, to ask them questions, to approve their appropriations, to withhold their appropriations when it's appropriate."

While some like Sen. Alexander have decided to take the tact of threatening to withhold funds if they don't get their way, the tone has been somewhat more conciliatory between the White House and Sen. Feingold. "We are having constructive conversations with Sen. Feingold to address his concerns and have a thoughtful examination of this issue," Dunn told the Times.

To some extent, the issue of the constitutionality of czars may be something of a red herring. When all is said and done, the czars are simply high level presidential advisors. They do not have the power to make laws, nor do they oversee any federal agencies or offices. The President is free to choose whomever he likes to act as an advisor; after all, everyone from his chief of staff to his wife is an advisor on some level and they don't require any sort of Congressional confirmation.