2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,988
- 52,279
- 2,290
From The Heritage Foundation
Guide to the Constitution
James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state's ratifying convention: "As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate."
Note the bolded word in the quote above.
Why is what they say so important?
I'm not sure what part of this you guys don't understand. The question asked of me was how did I know that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was that the Senate WOULD act on these nominations. I gave you a quote from an individual who was involved at the beginning that stated such. Seems pretty clear to me. If you really believe that it was intended to be optional then find me a quote from an individual with similar credentials who states that.
I believe the question being discussed was the existence of an obligation of the Senate to act.
Many things were said by all parties prior to ratification, but only the language agreed to and signed has any authority.
To get an idea of how ludicrous the idea that the Senate has no obligation to act and that only the exact language matters, let's look at another clause in the Constitution:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
Note that this says "may" and not must. Following your logic, the Constitution would allow the Congress to put off holding a presidential election forever just by refusing to ever set a date. Do any of you that support this line of reasoning agree that Congress has no Constitutional requirement to set an election date?
Such grasping. Apples and screwdrivers.
Note that the word "shall" here in the pertinent paragraph applies to the President, not the Senate.
[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.
It is like that little part of the 2nd Amendment the left wing just can't seem to see..."Shall not be infringed" ......they don't see that part either....