Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments1. The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senates consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.
2. Now, as soon as President Obama adds his signature to the bill, the checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers as a protection against tyranny will be eliminated, as well as the concept of enumerated powers.
3. In light of this impending imbalance, it must be inquired as to what could compel Congress to legislate away its own power? Why would so many representatives in the Senate and the House willingly abolish their role as bulwark against executive despotism?
Arguably, the answer is a desire to reduce its workload and improve the efficiency of government.
4. To the minds of many, however, t. As the Heritage Foundation he trade of rightful power for a more streamlined appointment process is a ripoffsays:
The Congress should not reduce the number of Senate-confirmed appointments as a means of dealing with its cumbersome and inefficient internal process for considering nominations. Doing so gives away Senate influence over a number of significant appointments, does nothing to improve the Senate process, and still leaves nominees whose offices require nominations mired in the Senate process. The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate. The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations. The proper solution also is the faster one, as the Senate can accomplish the solution by acting on its own in the exercise of its power to make Senate rules, while S. 679 requires approval by both Houses of Congress
Well, one thing is for sure.What kind of sweet amendments did Harry stick on it to get the House to cave?
I cannot believe Congress has done this. The Constitution states that the senate must approve the presidential appointments of each administration. This has been the way it has been since the conception of the Constitution. And when we have the most imperialistic president in history, they give him the right to select whom ever he chooses without going through the senate for approval? Mindboggling!
House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments1. The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senates consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.
2. Now, as soon as President Obama adds his signature to the bill, the checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers as a protection against tyranny will be eliminated, as well as the concept of enumerated powers.
3. In light of this impending imbalance, it must be inquired as to what could compel Congress to legislate away its own power? Why would so many representatives in the Senate and the House willingly abolish their role as bulwark against executive despotism?
Arguably, the answer is a desire to reduce its workload and improve the efficiency of government.
4. To the minds of many, however, t. As the Heritage Foundation he trade of rightful power for a more streamlined appointment process is a ripoffsays:
The Congress should not reduce the number of Senate-confirmed appointments as a means of dealing with its cumbersome and inefficient internal process for considering nominations. Doing so gives away Senate influence over a number of significant appointments, does nothing to improve the Senate process, and still leaves nominees whose offices require nominations mired in the Senate process. The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate. The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations. The proper solution also is the faster one, as the Senate can accomplish the solution by acting on its own in the exercise of its power to make Senate rules, while S. 679 requires approval by both Houses of Congress
So the senate works too hard? Since when?
The Constitution said:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
We are talking about the Republican controlled house here now aren't we?
with all those new Tea Party members?
We are talking about the Republican controlled house here now aren't we?
with all those new Tea Party members?
I cannot believe Congress has done this. The Constitution states that the senate must approve the presidential appointments of each administration. This has been the way it has been since the conception of the Constitution. And when we have the most imperialistic president in history, they give him the right to select whom ever he chooses without going through the senate for approval? Mindboggling!
House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments1. The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senates consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.
2. Now, as soon as President Obama adds his signature to the bill, the checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers as a protection against tyranny will be eliminated, as well as the concept of enumerated powers.
3. In light of this impending imbalance, it must be inquired as to what could compel Congress to legislate away its own power? Why would so many representatives in the Senate and the House willingly abolish their role as bulwark against executive despotism?
Arguably, the answer is a desire to reduce its workload and improve the efficiency of government.
4. To the minds of many, however, t. As the Heritage Foundation he trade of rightful power for a more streamlined appointment process is a ripoffsays:
The Congress should not reduce the number of Senate-confirmed appointments as a means of dealing with its cumbersome and inefficient internal process for considering nominations. Doing so gives away Senate influence over a number of significant appointments, does nothing to improve the Senate process, and still leaves nominees whose offices require nominations mired in the Senate process. The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate. The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations. The proper solution also is the faster one, as the Senate can accomplish the solution by acting on its own in the exercise of its power to make Senate rules, while S. 679 requires approval by both Houses of Congress
So the senate works too hard? Since when?
This makes no sense at all, why would one equal power branch of government give it's power too another branch of the government?
Lee is a liberty candidate and voted no Paul,Rubio,Demint are tea party folks and voted no. Both my senators voted no on it.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml
Both of mine did.....emailing tonight!Lee is a liberty candidate and voted no Paul,Rubio,Demint are tea party folks and voted no. Both my senators voted no on it.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml
Wish I could say both of mine did, but I have Bill Nelson to contend with
Lee is a liberty candidate and voted no Paul,Rubio,Demint are tea party folks and voted no. Both my senators voted no on it.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml
Wish I could say both of mine did, but I have Bill Nelson to contend with
