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

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.
No, it is more than just a title... Go look it up...
 
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.

This is not the way the framers of our constittution meant for our government to work. This portion was supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our powers in government and Congress just gave away their "check." Regardless of who's in power it should still be standing. It is especially bad when we have someone in office like Obama who circumvents the Congress whenever he chooses.

We just moved one step closer to a KIng.
 
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.

I agree. I hope when Romney wins he shows the democrats the error of their ways. The POTUS is getting way to much of the balance of power.
 
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.

They should reject the nominee if they take issue with him/her, however I've seen quotes from congressmen saying "I have nothing agaisnt x, but *insert excuse here*. It should be about the nominee, not a stalling tactic.

You're correct, it's just my preception. However I suspect every member of congress who voted for this bill would agree with me. I don't think congress should be abdicating power to the president, I simply wish they could act like adults more often. If they could they wouldn't feel this was necessary.
 
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.

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.
No, it is more than just a title... Go look it up...
Czar is just a title given by the media to people who oversee a perticular policy or department. How would you do away with them? :confused: ban the media from calling people czar?
 
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.

How would you do away with czars? Czar is just a title the media gives someone.
No, it is more than just a title... Go look it up...
Czar is just a title given by the media to people who oversee a perticular policy or department. How would you do away with them? :confused: ban the media from calling people czar?
I would make the practice of creating such psudeo-department heads part of the advise and consent clause of the Senate confirmation process. Or, even better, if a position that would be normally covered by the outdated practice of assigning a Czar;I would require that such a position be created as an assistant Secretary position in a Cabinet department. This makes them accountable to the Congress.
 
It's just one big team now. The whole 'Republican vs. Democrat' thing is such a sham. Yet most Americans continue buying into it. We need real choices. The Two-Party System is a joke.
 
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.

I have a queasy feeling in my belly any time I have to find myself agreeing with Greenbeard. But if he's going to accurately quote the Constitution itself and highlight the part that IS relevant, then I must get past my impending urge to toss cookies.

I think he's right.

And I think that's what they've done here, correctly identifying some REALLY inferior Officers.

There is a down side, though. This frees up their time to meddle with other things. I kind of prefer it when their hands are tied and they are bogged down on irrelevant shit. They tend to cause less harm that way.
 

Forum List

Back
Top