Obama Signs Bill Exempting Presidential Appointees From Senate Confirmation...

[paulitician]

Just one more reason for Americans to lose faith in our Government. This was a Bipartisan-sponsored Bill. Nah, they don't all play on the same team. No way. What's happening to our Nation?


President Barack Obama signed a bill Friday evening that would exempt some senior-level presidential appointees from Senate confirmation.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats, the bill, now law, weakens the power of the legislature and strengthens the executive branch, critics have warned. The bill skated through the Senate three months after being introduced in 2011 and was passed by the Republican-controlled House 261-116 in July.

The law now allows Obama and future presidents to name appointees to senior positions in every branch of the administration, from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security.

Conservative critics worried that the bill restricts congressional authority to monitor executive branch decisions, but the measure received bipartisan support because of the gridlocked, slow-moving Senate, which is known for being the more deliberative of the two bodies of Congress.

Whereas the House is a more populist body, the Senate grants more power to its fewer members. It only takes one senator to filibuster an appointee, forcing the majority party to find a “super majority” of 60 votes to end the filibuster and move ahead with an up-or-down vote.

The law now sidesteps that process, with Congress willingly giving up oversight of these appointees.

“The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process,” wrote Thomas McClusky, senior vice president for the Family Research Council’s legislative arm, in a memo to lawmakers last week...

Read more: Law exempts presidential appointees from Senate confirmation | The Daily Caller

 

[AmyNation]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

 

[paulitician]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

 

[Greenbeard]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

Why did the Framers explicitly allow for this?

 

[paulitician]

It's all just a rigged Shell Game. What a shame. 'Republican vs. Democrat?' Boy, Big Brother sure has duped the masses.

 

[AmyNation]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

The problem is politicans have been abusing the confirmation process. If things were running like they were intended, I would be more upset about this shifting of power.

 

[paulitician]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

The problem is politicans have been abusing the confirmation process. If things were running like they were intended, I would be more upset about this shifting of power.

That doesn't make this necessary or right.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why did the Framers explicitly allow for this?

No theories on that from the "Constitutionalist"?

 

[Darkwind]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

The problem is politicans have been abusing the confirmation process. If things were running like they were intended, I would be more upset about this shifting of power.

In what way has the the confirmation process been abused?

 

[Darkwind]

This thread has been done several times already. Obama signed a bill that congress sent him, that was passed by both dems and pubs.

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

Why did the Framers explicitly allow for this?

No theories on what? That Politician's have violated the Constitution, again? I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution where the people agreed to abdicate their responsibility to the President to just put any person he or she wished into postilion's of power without some electorate input to unelected officials.

Why not just do away with the vote all together and let the ruling class rule?

 

[Greenbeard]

No theories on what? That Politician's have violated the Constitution, again? I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution where the people agreed to abdicate their responsibility to the President to just put any person he or she wished into postilion's of power without some electorate input to unelected officials.

Ah, you don't recall. Let me help you out then. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

He [the President] 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.

Congress is free under the Constitution to "abdicate their responsibility" to confirm executive branch officials and instead vest that power in the President alone, as they did for certain officials recently.

Take it up with James Madison.

 

[Darkwind]

No theories on what? That Politician's have violated the Constitution, again? I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution where the people agreed to abdicate their responsibility to the President to just put any person he or she wished into postilion's of power without some electorate input to unelected officials.

Ah, you don't recall. Let me help you out then. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

He [the President] 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.

Congress is free under the Constitution to "abdicate their responsibility" to confirm executive branch officials and instead vest that power in the President alone, as they did for certain officials recently.

Take it up with James Madison.

whttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inferiorww.dictionary.com/inferior

Also, care to show Me the Senate vote.

 

[AmyNation]

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

The problem is politicans have been abusing the confirmation process. If things were running like they were intended, I would be more upset about this shifting of power.

In what way has the the confirmation process been abused?

The confirmation process is to vet appointees, not to block appointees because you don't want anyone doing the job they've been tasked, or because you hate the president or as a bargaining chip to get something you want. I suspect it got bipartisan support because both parties are unsure of who will get elected in November and are hoping if it's their guy they can avoid a repeat of the last 4 years.

 

[Darkwind]

The problem is politicans have been abusing the confirmation process. If things were running like they were intended, I would be more upset about this shifting of power.

In what way has the the confirmation process been abused?

The confirmation process is to vet appointees, not to block appointees because you don't want anyone doing the job they've been tasked, or because you hate the president or as a bargaining chip to get something you want. I suspect it got bipartisan support because both parties are unsure of who will get elected in November and are hoping if it's their guy they can avoid a repeat of the last 4 years.

so, to you, the confirmation process should be a rubber stamp when a Democrat is in the Presidency, but should be a vetting process when a Republican is in office?

You see, there is nothing that says they should rubber stamp anyone, and if there are legitimate (to them, not to you) reasons for blocking an appointment, then they ARE doing their job.

You can always get a 2/3's vote.

There is absolutely no valid reason for the Congress to abdicate their authority.

Getting things done is a piss poor reason to dismantle our confirmation process.

 

[Jackson]

Yes, that's what happened. And it's an awful disgrace.

The problem is politicans have been abusing the confirmation process. If things were running like they were intended, I would be more upset about this shifting of power.

In what way has the the confirmation process been abused?

They have stalled instead of giving an up or down vote.

 

[Freewill]

Actually this is a good thing. Obama was circumventing the rules anyway with recess appointments, even when the Senate wasn't in recess. One of the bigger excuses for Obama was that the Republcians blocked ALL of his nominations that a lot of the positions were not filled.

Now that excuse goes out the window.

Now, when Romney is elected, he can shove any appointment he wants down Reid's throat. Nice move democrats. Remember, you are in charge, it is not the Republicans.

 

[AmyNation]

In what way has the the confirmation process been abused?

The confirmation process is to vet appointees, not to block appointees because you don't want anyone doing the job they've been tasked, or because you hate the president or as a bargaining chip to get something you want. I suspect it got bipartisan support because both parties are unsure of who will get elected in November and are hoping if it's their guy they can avoid a repeat of the last 4 years.

so, to you, the confirmation process should be a rubber stamp when a Democrat is in the Presidency, but should be a vetting process when a Republican is in office?

You see, there is nothing that says they should rubber stamp anyone, and if there are legitimate (to them, not to you) reasons for blocking an appointment, then they ARE doing their job.

You can always get a 2/3's vote.

There is absolutely no valid reason for the Congress to abdicate their authority.

Getting things done is a piss poor reason to dismantle our confirmation process.

Who said anything about a rubber stamp? You ask the questions and then you vote, you dont purposefully drag out the process and stall just for the hell of it.

I suspect if the polls continue to show Romney and Obama neck and neck, we may see some bi-partisan legislation amending the filibuster process as well.

 

[Darkwind]

Actually this is a good thing. Obama was circumventing the rules anyway with recess appointments, even when the Senate wasn't in recess. One of the bigger excuses for Obama was that the Republcians blocked ALL of his nominations that a lot of the positions were not filled.

Now that excuse goes out the window.

Now, when Romney is elected, he can shove any appointment he wants down Reid's throat. Nice move democrats. Remember, you are in charge, it is not the Republicans.

Yet, I would be against it still. It matters little to Me who the President is, but that the power of the Executive is strictly curtailed to remain within the boundaries of the Constitution.

A recess appointment, while acceptable, is very limited in scope and last for the duration of the term and is then subject to consent of Congress at the end of that term.

I would be more accepting of a law that did away with recess appointments completely, along with these so called 'czars'.

Government power needs to be restricted, not expanded.

 

[Darkwind]

The confirmation process is to vet appointees, not to block appointees because you don't want anyone doing the job they've been tasked, or because you hate the president or as a bargaining chip to get something you want. I suspect it got bipartisan support because both parties are unsure of who will get elected in November and are hoping if it's their guy they can avoid a repeat of the last 4 years.

so, to you, the confirmation process should be a rubber stamp when a Democrat is in the Presidency, but should be a vetting process when a Republican is in office?

You see, there is nothing that says they should rubber stamp anyone, and if there are legitimate (to them, not to you) reasons for blocking an appointment, then they ARE doing their job.

You can always get a 2/3's vote.

There is absolutely no valid reason for the Congress to abdicate their authority.

Getting things done is a piss poor reason to dismantle our confirmation process.

Who said anything about a rubber stamp? You ask the questions and then you vote, you dont purposefully drag out the process and stall just for the hell of it.

I suspect if the polls continue to show Romney and Obama neck and neck, we may see some bi-partisan legislation amending the filibuster process as well.

That is just a claim based upon your perception and may or may not be true. However, by saying that the Congress should vet the appointee means that if those doing the vetting disagree with the nominee, they SHOULD block the appointment.

 

[AmyNation]

Actually this is a good thing. Obama was circumventing the rules anyway with recess appointments, even when the Senate wasn't in recess. One of the bigger excuses for Obama was that the Republcians blocked ALL of his nominations that a lot of the positions were not filled.

Now that excuse goes out the window.

Now, when Romney is elected, he can shove any appointment he wants down Reid's throat. Nice move democrats. Remember, you are in charge, it is not the Republicans.

Yet, I would be against it still. It matters little to Me who the President is, but that the power of the Executive is strictly curtailed to remain within the boundaries of the Constitution.

A recess appointment, while acceptable, is very limited in scope and last for the duration of the term and is then subject to consent of Congress at the end of that term.

I would be more accepting of a law that did away with recess appointments completely, along with these so called 'czars'.

Government power needs to be restricted, not expanded.

How would you do away with czars? Czar is just a title the media gives someone.