Republican lawmakers are pushing for increased scrutiny and perhaps Senate confirmation for presidential "czars" in the wake of the resignation of green jobs "czar" Van Jones.

GOP members of Congress have suggested that President Obama's appointment of some 30 czars to handle various policy initiatives have sidestepped the constitutional mandate for the Senate's "advice and consent."

"I think that it's very important for the president to follow Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, that says the president must seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate when appointing his principal officers and advisers," Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said during an interview on Fox News yesterday.

"The idea that the president is circumventing the advice and consent of the Senate and putting in these people that have enormous power with no accountability is a danger to this republic," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) told Fox over the weekend.

Republicans have ramped up calls for more scrutiny if not outright Senate confirmation procedures for the czars since Jones resigned amidst a controversy about his past words toward Republicans and actions supporting a 9/11 "truther" organization.

The calls so far for more Senate oversight of the czars, though, have ironically come from House Republicans, who would not have a vote in any confirmation process.

Other members of the White House senior staff, from the chief of staff to White House counsel to senior advisers and the press secretary, also do not have to go through Senate confirmation.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that the czars raise constitutional issues, but the more important problem is that the nominees haven't been vetted.

"The point here is not that President Obama's reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). Nor is it that these czars are bad people," Cantor, one of the first lawmakers to weigh in on the czars, wrote in the Washington Post. "It's that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they're doing. It's that candidate Obama made a pledge to keep Congress in the light. Yet less than six months after his inauguration, the president appears intent to keep Congress more and more in the dark."

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) complained that the czars lack the same level of accountability as cabinet secretaries, who do face confirmation processes in the Senate.

"We've got to retreat back to what the Founding Fathers really intended," he said Tuesday morning during an interview on the Fox Business Network. "I think we ought to get rid of the czars, and actually have the people that are running these departments do their jobs."

Kingston said that the czars should face the same rigorous vetting by Congress that secretaries, Supreme Court justices, and other appointees receive.

"And, you know, one thing the United States Senate is good at is vetting people and asking very, very difficult questions," he argued. "And, so, we believe that these czars should have that process, just like Supreme Court nominations, just like Cabinet secretaries, just like undersecretaries, deputy secretaries, generals, officers of the military."

"I don't know a better word to use than 'bizarre' and 'unconstitutional,'" Franks said.

Updated at 12:32 p.m.