It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress passed law to end "Advice and consent of the Senate". It now goes to the President

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 




You should have highlighted this part
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,"


That provision applies to the list of appointments that follows it, namely: ", shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,". You The OP already pointed out that the bill doesn't touch those folk, so why should I have hilighted that part? I hilighted the part of the Constitution that this bill is using - the part that says Congress can decide which "inferior officers" appointments (appointments that it instructs the President to make, remember) that it thinks require Senate oversight.

The Constitution provides that for "and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:". That is officers that are defined by some Law of Congress for some task or other.

The phrase I highlighted ensures that Congress can decide which of those 'inferior' appointments they need to approve, and which they do not. This bill is the Congress exercising its Constitutional perogative to do that - it is in no way abrogating its Constitutional authority.

Congress does not have the authority to pass a law abbrogating the Senate's responsibility to provide 'advise and consent' for those officers named: Ambassadors, Ministers and Consuls, and Judges. This bill does not do that, and Congress would never presume to attempt it. In today's language "Ministers and Consuls" refers to the Cabinet Departmental Secretaries (and maybe a few other officers).

The Constitution never anticipated that the Senate should micro-manage every 'inferior' Administrative appointment. In business, the Board of Directors hires the CEO and approves the CEO's appointments of the Departmental Heads. But the BoD does not get involved in hires below the Department Heads unless the particular position is seen as critical. This is exactly comparable.



..because that superceeds what is written prior. NOW they have NO CHOICE, because their consent is NOW irrelevent.


I really don't know what you are complaining about here. Of course they have choice. They can choose to bring those positions back into their advise and consent umbrella at a future date if they think it necessary.

The provisions of this bill superceed the provisions of previous bill (or bills), yes, so what? What door to corrupt power is going to open because the President can appoint a "Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration"? How many levels down the hierarchy does the Dep.Adm.FAA sit in the organization chart? Should the Senate provide advise and consent about the Deputy Administrators Personal Assistant too? What about the Deputy to the Deputy? If so why does the Framers of the Constitution provide for the Office of the President to administer the Government? They could have stuck with a Prime Minister like the British Parliament they were intimately familiar with.

So, yes, Congress has in the past felt that it needed to spend its time "advising and consenting" for hundreds of third and forth level functionaries. That is the Congress' Constitutional perogative, when they establish some agency to do something, they can specify that appointments to that agency must be approved by them. It is also their Constitutional perogative to allow the Executive to administer the program without their micromanagement.

Since almost all of these appointments are simply 'rubber stamped' anyway, the only thing that the Senate process accomplishs is to slow down the implementation of the Congress' intentions. If Congress establishes a program it usually wants it to be implemented, and it is Presidential appointments that administer it. If Congress then takes years to approve the appointments, they are defeating their own intentions.



You will freak out once the other guy you dont like is in control.


No, I won't. Why should I? The President is elected to do a job, and Congress should allow him to do that job. The fact that my preferred candidate doesn't win doesn't make him any less the President. A dysfunctional, do nothing Congress like the one currently in office freaks me out a heck of a lot more than that.

You seem to be struggling with the concept that the Congress and the President following Constitutional processes is somehow damaging to the integrity of the Constitution. Congress cannot 'change the Constitution by passing a law, it takes an Amendment to do that, and that takes 2/3 of the States to agree. On the other hand, if the Framers didn't expect Congress to pass laws and for the President to administer those laws they wouldn't have defined those positions in the Constitution.



edit on 5/8/2012 by rnaa because: correct the first paragraph to refer to the OP not Common Good - sorry about that




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MojaveBurning
 




While I understand that they (senate) have the right to delegate responsibility (as someone else said) it seems like this *could* be one that just shouldn't have been delegated.


Fair enough. Your elected representatives disagree.

I'm ambivalent. Seems to me that the money spent on hearings on appointments 3 or more layers deep in the organization chart could be put to more productive use, but that is the Congress' call.



*disclaimer: this opinion comes from someone with mildly paranoid ideas and little knowledge of politics, so take with a grain of salt!


I don't think you need a disclaimer about your politics on this point. The OP wasn't about the politics, it was about the incorrect perception that this was somehow a subversion of the Constitution. That isn't politics - it is civics - understanding the way the Constitution works - the map not the destination.

Politics is the destination, Civics is the map, our map is the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 




You mean to tell me they just happened to let the Treasurer slip through with all of those other minor appointments?


The Treasurer is not a policy setting position; you may be confusing this position with the "Secretary of the Treasury". The Treasurer is just an Administrator under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Secretary of the Treasury is and will continue to be subject to Senate approval.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
This is another deliberate attempt by the political party system to consolidate more power to one branch. I say this because both Republicans and Democrats know that when the other party i selected they will be able to wield the power secured by the other party in the previous election cycle...

this is not a secret and many people are starting to see this since the consolidation of power by the executive branch under Bush was passed to Obama......

the left right march into tyranny!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Interesting, but yeah, if they didn't think he was a shoe-in....they wouldn't allow this to happen.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


..because that superceeds what is written prior. NOW they have NO CHOICE, because their consent is NOW irrelevent.



I really don't know what you are complaining about here. Of course they have choice. They can choose to bring those positions back into their advise and consent umbrella at a future date if they think it necessary.


Yea- when the administration in charge starts making legislation based off one sided information it gets from these departments whom happen to be the Presidents hand-pick lapdogs.

It doesnt matter how high or low down the food chain these positions are, they are supposed to be reviewed by the senate so the President doesnt have all the power to put whoever he wants in those positions.

IT CAN AND WILL effect future proposed legislation based on facts from those departments, who then pass their information on to the next highest person from whom they will make their positions/stance from.
Thats why these "low key positions" are there in the first place. To have one man put his own people in there is dangerous.

Sad part is, both parties want it, cause it gives them more control when they are in power.

You are making it sound as if since these positions are not 'key' positions- that it is somehow ok to bypass consent.
This is what kings and dictators do.

Its not about streamlining anything. How can ONE MAN make quicker and better decisions on appointments over the Entire Senate who may have more information on that person and the position they are being given. Unless of course the President has "special someone" in mind to further his agenda.

They cant just simply "take back" legislation once it is passed as you put it. They have to go through this entire process if they want that power back.
Just cant say "Hey President- we gave you too much power- we are taking it back"- unless there is a vote,
and according to the way BOTH parties voted on this, that WILL NOT happen. They like the power.

I tried to warn people about this bill a week before the house voted on it here on this site, yet nobody cared until it was passed[like is always the case].

Have you actually looked at all those "lowly" positions the President can now appoint? He shouldnt have that power, unless it is deemed ok by those in the senate. Thats my opinion on the matter.

Ive spent too much time on this thread- so I hope others can come chime in.

(eventhough it does not matter)- It has been passed and now we have to deal with it. Its better to know what power they have gained instead of brushing it off like its no big deal.
edit on 5-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Your absolutely RIGHT....not sure what more I could add to your well thought out post....I agree,,,



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Thank You =)

It sure did hurt my brain a lil bit though.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Is there a specific purpose for this.

Or is it just tightening things up?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


:shk: We're getting closer and closer to having a president with absolute power. Just one thing right after the other and no one seems to care. Julius Caesar's autobiography is starting to come to mind. I'm firmly convinced someone has been dumping Ritalin in the nation's water supplies because i have never seen this much apathy in all my life, people can't see where this is heading. Might as well butt my brains out on a wall :bnghd: for all the good it doesn't do.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 




Interesting, but yeah, if they didn't think he was a shoe-in....they wouldn't allow this to happen.


Are you saying that this do-nothing, obstructionist Congress thinks that Obama is a shoe-in so they are moving to make his job easier next term?

That just doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 




Yea- when the administration in charge starts making legislation based off one sided information it gets from these departments whom happen to be the Presidents hand-pick lapdogs.


Which Constitution are you reading? The Administration does not make legislation. Congress does. The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States. CEO's pick the people who work for them, they MUST pick the people that work for them. The review process is not about getting people into positions to do Congress bidding.

Your 'lapdog' characterization is stupid. Do you have a job at a company where your immediate boss is not the business owner or CEO? Was your hiring approved directly by the Board of Directors of the Company? Are you the lap dog of the CEO? A CEO might need to get Board approval for a new Head of Product Development or Marketing, but the Board is not going to be interested in approving a new Chief Graphics Artist or Head Engineer.



It doesnt matter how high or low down the food chain these positions are, they are supposed to be reviewed by the senate so the President doesnt have all the power to put whoever he wants in those positions.


That was never the intention of the Framers, that's why the Constitution specifically provides that Congress can decided which positions, outside of the critical ones that it mentions, it needs to review. What Congress is 'supposed to' do is legislate and let the President administer. That is part of what is called 'separation of powers'. If Congress has to review every appointment, that is all they would be doing.



IT CAN AND WILL effect future proposed legislation based on facts from those departments, who then pass their information on to the next highest person from whom they will make their positions/stance from.
Thats why these "low key positions" are there in the first place.


Of course it will. That is why Presidents are elected, to put their policies in effect, and that is accomplished by hiring people to work for the President that are dedicated to making those policies work.



To have one man put his own people in there is dangerous.


That is absurd. Did your boss hire you because you don't believe in his vision for the company? You are kidding yourself.



...
Its not about streamlining anything. How can ONE MAN make quicker and better decisions on appointments over the Entire Senate who may have more information on that person and the position they are being given. Unless of course the President has "special someone" in mind to further his agenda.

Of course the President has nominated the person for a reason, and thinks that the person is the right person to do the job the President asks him to do. Do you think he is just picking people off the street? The President need to hire the people he needs to the job. The Senate is not the President's HR department.

The Senate is NOT the administrator, that is the role of the President. The Senate is not doing the hiring, the President is. I ask again, which Constitution are you reading?



They cant just simply "take back" legislation once it is passed as you put it. They have to go through this entire process if they want that power back.
Just cant say "Hey President- we gave you too much power- we are taking it back"- unless there is a vote,
and according to the way BOTH parties voted on this, that WILL NOT happen. They like the power.



And how do you think they got the power in the first place? They had a vote. That is what Congress does - they vote on stuff. Once upon a time, as recently as the 1960's Congress didn't review anywhere near as many positions as they do now. They have steadily been adding more and more positions; they most definitely said "we think you have too much power and we are taking some of it off you". They have reached the point where it takes months to approve the most uncontroversial appointment, and are trying to put some balance in the process.

There is absolutely nothing sinister about it all.


edit on 6/8/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Im just stupid if you think that.

See- The Senate had the ability to give consent-now they dont.

THAT is what has changed, it is called an amendment.

If they werent "Administors" then they wouldnt have had the power to begin with.

Nice Rant though. well kind of.

Edit- Here You go. Read.

wiki-en.wikipedia.org...:_Advice_and_Consent_Clause
Appointments
Main article: Appointments Clause
The President may also appoint judges, ambassadors, consuls, ministers and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate. By law, however, Congress may allow the President, heads of executive departments, or the courts to appoint inferior officials.

The Senate has a long-standing practice of permitting motions to reconsider previous decisions. In 1931, the Senate granted advice and consent to the President on the appointment of a member of the Federal Power Commission. The officer in question was sworn in, but the Senate, under the guise of a motion to reconsider, rescinded the advice and consent. In the writ of quo warranto proceedings that followed, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate was not permitted to rescind advice and consent after the officer had been installed.

After the Senate grants advice and consent, however, the President is under no compulsion to commission the officer. It has not been settled whether the President has the prerogative to withhold a commission after having signed it. This issue played a large part in the famous court case Marbury v. Madison.

At times the President has asserted the power to remove individuals from office. Congress has often explicitly limited the President's power to remove; during the Reconstruction Era, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, purportedly preventing Andrew Johnson from removing, without the advice and consent of the Senate, anyone appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. President Johnson ignored the Act, and was later impeached and acquitted. The constitutionality of the Act was not immediately settled. In Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit the President's power to remove an executive officer (the Postmaster General), but in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) it upheld Congress's authority to restrict the President's power to remove officers of the Federal Trade Commission, an "administrative body [that] cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or eye of the executive."

Congress may repeal the legislation that authorizes the appointment of an executive officer. But it "cannot reserve for itself the power of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment."[7] Congress has from time to time changed the number of justices in the Supreme Court.

edit on 6-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   


Its hard to always blame the politicians when the people do nothing to stop it.



we vote the politicians to stop it for us, we don't have permission to stop it, they do.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


That one is weird. They didn't strike it but moved it. I am confused about that one really.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by FortAnthem
 




You mean to tell me they just happened to let the Treasurer slip through with all of those other minor appointments?


The Treasurer is not a policy setting position; you may be confusing this position with the "Secretary of the Treasury". The Treasurer is just an Administrator under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Secretary of the Treasury is and will continue to be subject to Senate approval.


I think you should post the 'evidence' of this. That way things are clear. I think you are right but it is always good to provide reference in the ATS minefield.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 




Im just stupid if you think that.

Far be it from me to change your opinion of your self, but I certainly do believe what I said.

As to the rest of your post, I don't understand your point. We are talking about hiring, not firing.

The quoted text describes the various controversies surrounding the 'firing' of employees once they have been hired.

It describes attempts by Congress to fire a Presidential appointee it had previously consented to hiring when the President thought the employee was doing a good job and wanted to keep. It is the CEO's perogative to keep employee's they think they need to do the job; the BoD is not the HR department. Of course just as the BoD can fire the CEO and then the new CEO can put his own people in place; Congress can impeach the President and the new President can then make his own appointments.

It also describes attempts by the President to fire an appointee that Congress had specified should have a specific term. Although CEO's can fire employee's, they cannot do it unjustly, and must honor the provisions of their employment contract. The BoD is tasked with ensuring that the CEO's actions do not put the company in legal danger, and exposing the company to breach of contract lawsuits is such a danger. Notice that Congress did indeed try to fire the President in that instance.

The problem is neither of those examples are talking about the HIRING EVENT. "Advice and Consent" is about the HIRING EVENT not the FIRING EVENT. The bill that this thread is discussing is about the HIRING EVENT. This law has no affect on Congress firing authority. Congress has never had the authority to fire Presidential appointees (except that Judges can be impeached, I'm unclear on 'Ministers and Consuls' i.e. Cabinet Secretaries). Your quoted text makes that clear.

When I said that Congress can decide to 'take back' its Advice and Consent authority for these positions, I did not mean that it could fire those folks at will. I meant that they could take back 'HIRING approval' for future hires if they so chose.

"Advice and Consent" is about HIRING not firing.

edit on 7/8/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/8/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/8/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/8/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



I think you should post the 'evidence' of this.

For which part do you want evidence?

1) The Treasurer is not the same as the Secretary of the Treasury

Wikipedia: Treasurer of the United States

Not to be confused with United States Secretary of the Treasury.


Wikipedia: United States Secretary of the Treasury

Not to be confused with Treasurer of the United States.


2) The Treasurer is an administrator not a policy maker
Wikipedia: Treasurer of the United States

The Treasurer of the United States is an official in the United States Department of the Treasury that was originally charged with the receipt and custody of government funds, though many of these functions have been taken over by different bureaus of the Department of the Treasury. Responsibility for oversight of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the United States Mint, and the United States Savings Bonds Division (now the Savings Bond Marketing Office within the Bureau of the Public Debt) was assigned to the Treasurer in 1981. As of 2002 the Office of the Treasurer underwent a major reorganization. The Treasurer now advises the Director of the Mint, the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury on matters relating to coinage, currency and the production of other instruments by the United States. The Treasurer's signature, as well as the Treasury Secretary's, appear on Federal Reserve notes.


3) The Secretary of the Treasury is subject to "Advice and Consent"
Oxford Guide to the United States Government: confirmation of nominations

According to the Constitution (Article 2, Section 2), the Senate alone has the authority to advise and consent on nominations made by the President. These nominations include those of members of the cabinet, executive agency heads, diplomats, judges, federal attorneys, and military officers. This power is critically important to the federal system of checks and balances. Along with the development of “senatorial courtesy”—by which senators usually will not vote to confirm nominees opposed by their home-state senators—the confirmation power has given the Senate great influence over certain types of appointments. For instance, Presidents generally nominate federal judges and U.S. marshals from lists provided by senators and key members of the House of Representatives.


4) The bill does not affect the Senate's "advice and consent" role over cabinet positions.
Full Text of S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011
In the "Department of the Treasury section", the bill removes advice and consent requirement for 2 out of 10 Assistant Secretaries and for the Treasurer:

(l) Department of the Treasury-
(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARIES FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND MANAGEMENT- Section 301(e) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking ‘10 Assistant Secretaries’ and inserting ‘8 Assistant Secretaries’; and
(B) by inserting ‘The Department shall have 2 Assistant Secretaries not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate who shall be the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary for Management.’ after the first sentence.

(2) TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 301(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking ‘2 Deputy Under Secretaries, and a Treasurer of the United States’ and inserting ‘and 2 Deputy Under Secretaries’, and
(B) by inserting ‘and a Treasurer of the United States appointed by the President’ after ‘Fiscal Assistant Secretary appointed by the Secretary’.


Radio Patriot: Senate Bill 679 – not so onerous after all

According to a CRS (Congressional Research Service) report from 2003, routine nominations in any given Congress number between 50,000 and 100,000. According to the Senate Rules committee, the number of nominations that require a true vetting process, FBI reports etc… is about 1409, vs 286 in the Kennedy administration

The bill would reclassify about 200 non-political, non-senior positions so as to not require Senate confirmation.


Over 60 years, Congress has added close to 1200 positions subject to "Advice and Consent", now they are reducing their workload by about 200 positions. They can add them back later if they think it wise. That is their job.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Thought I'd better comment on this part, because it just doesn't make sense.



See- The Senate had the ability to give consent-now they dont.

The Senate still has the ability to give advice and consent. What brings you to the conclusion that they don't?

It is their Constitutional responsibility to give such advice and consent for those positions named in the Constitution and any others that Congress by law deems necessary.



THAT is what has changed, it is called an amendment.

Laws do not amend the Constitution. Amendments are proposed by Congress and ratified by the States.

This is a law that reduces the number of positions that Congress has, by law, decided needs to be confirmed by the Senate. It does not remove the 'Advice and Consent' responsibility altogether, and it does not (and cannot) affect the positions specifically named in the Constitution that require confirmation.



If they werent "Administors" then they wouldnt have had the power to begin with.

This "power" is a vital part of the 'checks and balances' built in to the Constitution. The Senators are not administrators. There is a reason that a Presidents term in office is known as 'his Administration'.

This bill is simply a change to the list of positions that Congress has over time deemed necessary for Senate confirmation. It is not an amendment to the Constitution. There are currently over 1400 positions that Congress has required the Senate to confirm, and this bill reduces that to about 1200. If Congress deems it wise, they can pass another law to add those positions back onto the confirmation requirements and more besides (for future hires; they cannot require confirmation for people already hired).

For a good discussion of the purpose of the Advice and Consent clause in the Constitution, I can recommend:
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, Before the Adoption of the Constitution, Volume 3 by Joseph Storey, 1833.

Start around paragraph 1518 on page 372 (the above link should go right there) and continue to at least paragraph 1531. Pay special attention to paragraph 1529 on page 382. Paragraph 1531 starts talking about firing appointed officers.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




That one is weird. They didn't strike it but moved it. I am confused about that one really.


You mean the Treasurer?

They decided that the Treasurer was really appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury and that they didn't need to confirm that role. In other words, the Treasurer is now supposed to be a merit based hire instead of a political appointment. The Treasurer is not involved in political policy making; they are involved in mundane day to day administration of the Mint and stuff like that.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join