I’m seeing it claimed in numerous places that Steve Bannon’s appointment to the NSC requires Senate approval.
They’re citing this section of the U.S. code:
Apparently they’re talking about this part, specifically number 6:
It strikes me that he doesn’t fit any of those categories. He’s not a secretary of anything.
Looking further down that document, it appears to me that he could be appointed to one of the various committees, but is that what Trump did and, if so, does that enable him to attend NSC meetings?
Snopes calls the claim that he needs confirmation “unproven.” They wrap up their discussion saying it is unlikely he does. It’s an informative analysis of the issues based on actual lawyers weighing in for them vs the non lawyers I have mostly seen carrying the discussion.
We need to step back and discuss what the National Security Council is.
When the President presides over a meeting of the top national security officials, as designated by law, and those he invites, that is a National Security Council meeting. Bannon is “invited as an attendee” to such meetings.
There’s also the Principals Committee, which is basically all the same cabinet secretaries that would attend an NSC meeting, but with the National Security Adviser presiding and the President does not attend. A lot of big policy decisions are formulated at these meetings: they are extremely important. Bannon is a permanent part of the PC meetings.
It’s very strange for a political adviser to be invited to full NSC meetings; to have a political adviser be a permanent member of the PC, IMHO, is bonkers.
But no: the longstanding principle is that the President may invite who he wants to these meetings. The National Security Adviser would be at all of them, really, and he/she isn’t subject to Senate confirmation.
I’m of the opinion that Congress cannot dictate who the President chooses to invite to meetings on policy in any case, so the idea that Senate confirmation is implied, and therefore required, of the President’s advisers would be an untenable breach of the separation of powers.
Even though having Bannon be a permanent fixture at such meetings is, again, bonkers.
Actually it does matter, because it would be a precedent setting event that the President could only consult with some aides if the Senate allows it.
As much as I think this Bannon elevation is completely nuts, surely anyone can see how this would bite future Presidents in the ass. Republicans went all nuts that Van Jones was a threat to this nation or whatever, and all that President Obama wanted him to do was advise on environmental issues. I think it is unconstitutional for the President to subject his personal advisers to the whims of the Senate, and would be a terrible precedent.
Yes, but ultimately the President would decide whether he’s trustworthy or not, so it isn’t like his appointment can be vetoed by some underling in the Executive Branch.
You know, “advise and consent” or not, there’s nothing to stop the Senate from using its investigatory power to subpoena Bannon (and Steve Miller while they’re at it) to answer tough questions about the clusterf*ck Executive Order and their role in it.
Some prominent GOP Senators have spoken out against the travel-ban fiasco (and been twitter-bit by Trump in return), so it’s not totally outlandish to think that a bipartisan Senate committee could put Bannon and Miller in the hot seat, if there’s enough public pressure to do so (cough write your Senator cough).
The problem is that we don’t know we have a future. We’re at full emergency mode now. Trump is kicking out the people who actually can handle this stuff, and bring in a white supremacist. He’s already indicated he won’t accept what the CIA or FBI say, and instead trusts fake news on Twitter.
This is an issue of putting the country in front of politics. It’s bad enough we have to let Trump near our national security. Allowing him to get rid of the experts and bring in a conspiracy theorist? That’s suicide for our country.
Deliberations and advice to the President are widely viewed as the most uncontroversial part of executive privilege. In fact, there is no reason why Congress could compel them to say anything about the discussions leading to the executive order.
Unless you’re confident that the United States will never have another president after Donald Trump, I’d say yes, we do have a future. He may fuck this country up a lot, but I don’t think that the Constitution will be deleted in the next few years. Gut-punched, yes. Molested, yes. Ended, no. Get a grip.