It’s not the only argument.
But’s it’s a perfectly good one, and the fact that you can’t cite what the time limit is means there isn’t one.
This is easy. The point you are misreading is that the Senate is not required to give consent, and thus the appointment.
But… but but… my reading is supported by the text. The words and syntax of the passage state outright that the nomination “shall” happen, and the manner in which it “shall” happen is by the consent of the Senate. This means the Senate “shall” consent.
In order to understand that this is not the meaning of the passage that we should use, we have to go beyond the text.
I asked what I was misreading. This is not an answer. It’s like you’re eating your own tail here with the circularity.
You don’t seem to know what consent means in terms of this process, or else you just don’t want to put in the effort.
That’s not what it literally says.
At best, the passage is ambiguous. It only seems unambiguous if you (albeit very naturally and understandably–and, to be clear, correctly) import several assumptions from outside the text.
The fact that you haven’t given another means there isn’t one.
Not being under a deadline presupposes that they are and must be engaged in this process in order to not have one.
But you say they are not because, well they don’t have to because like, it’s…we don’t have to do what you want, ever ever ever, yeah that’s it.
Got any more?
Go back and read this thread. I’m not going to repeat myself just because you haven’t read the thread.
It’s pretty much all post just like the above. Very Trumpian actually.
Yes, that is what it literally says. Or is this another of your jokes?
Well, if by “assumptions” you mean a command of the English language, then yes. Apart from that, no.
The text says that the President shall nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint. The President hasn’t nominated anyone. Ergo, the person who is not fulfilling his Consitutional duty (yet) is the President, because he is the only one the Constitution says shall do something unconditionally.
You are misreading the Constitution.
The text is quite clear what consent means in terms of the process.
The President nominates someone. If the Senate consents, that nominee is appointed. If the Senate does not consent, the President nominates someone else. No deadline is specified in the text, so there isn’t one.
But again, Obama hasn’t nominated anyone, so there is no process begun, and no one to whom the Senate can give its consent, or withhold it. If you are saying there is a deadline for the Senate to give its consent, then it would seem that there must be a deadline for the President, because his nomination is a necessary first step in the process. Why is this non-existent deadline ticking for the Senate and not for the officer who is supposed to start the process?
To be clear, there is no deadline specified in the Constitution,either for the nomination or the consent. I am asking why, if you are going to claim that the Senate hasn’t started hearings and that this shows they are abrogating their Constitutional duties, why is Obama not abrogating his much more obvious duty under the Constitution of starting the process by nominating somebody?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s the anti-gun lobby which has to keep changing it’s name in order to overcome it’s repeated lies and find new support. You should continue to underrate the voting strength of 2nd Amendment supporters.
More? You haven’t provided any support of your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, or the U.S. Senates rules, other than your feelings. You don’t seem to like the situation as you find it so you seem to ignore the real world. If you believe there actually is a time limit, go ahead and make your case. If you believe there should be a time limit, good luck trying to convince the U.S. Senate to enact one.
History has proven that “consent” in terms of this process does not mean that the U.S. Senate MUST automatically approve of a Presidential nominee.
Your particular reading of the passage has no influence on the members of the U.S. Senate.
Arguably the Framers envisioned a time frame that could be about a year given the details of the Recess Appointments clause, though certainly no limit is hard written.
Suppose the Senate recesses at the end of their term. It’s the early days of the nation and the Senate does not sit in session all year long. They meet for a couple months and then recess and go home until the next session some 10 to 12 months away.
The day after they recess a supreme Court justice dies. The president make a recess appointment to the Court that is valid until the end of the next Senate session.
The Constitution provides a timeline for the service of that recess appointee which gives the Senate until the end of their next term to vote to make the appointment permanent, else it lapses and the nominee is out of office. That is a year away!
And a vote is only required if the Senate wishes to give their Advice and Consent. If they do not, they need not vote and the nominee will be out of office. But the president may make another recess appointment (could be of the same person) after the Senate recesses again.
You shall read this sentence, with and by the use of your eyes.
What does that mean? Can it be fulfilled without your eyes being used? Can it be fulfilled without your reading the sentence? No on both counts. If the eyes are not used, then the imperative has not been fulfilled. The grammatical structure of the sentence requires that the reading, and the use of the eyes, must occur.
Similarly: The president will appoint the nominee, with and by the consent of the senate. What does that mean? Can it be fulfilled without the senate giving consent? Can it be fulfilled without the president making an appointment? No on both counts. If the senate does not consent, then the imperative has not been fulfilled. The grammatical structure of the sentence requires that the appointment, and the consent, must occur.
Again, I don’t actually think this is the “right way to read it.” I’m just pointing out that if we insist on a literal reading of the text, it is at least ambiguous, because the above is a clear, literal reading of the text itself.
No. The imperative is that it must occur, “by and with the advise and consent of the Senate”. Without it, the appointment shall not occur. But, as noted, the president has an out by way of recess appointments.
No, it doesn’t. The appointment is conditional on the advice and consent of the Senate. That is made clear by the semantics of the statement, not its grammar.
Textualism requires the ability to read for meaning. Misunderstanding something is not an argument against textualism, and does not discredit it.
The text says the opposite of what you claim - unless the Senate consents, the President shall not appoint someone. That is the literal meaning of the text.
The President shall nominate someone (which he has not done, and therefore is in violation of his duty under the Constitution, so far). The Senate has not consented to the nomination, which they don’t have to do, and haven’t done so, because Obama hasn’t nominated anybody. So the Senate is not in violation of any of the text of the Constitution - they can’t consent or decline, because Obama has not nominated anyone, and they have no duty whatever to consent to any nominee.
You must be joking again, and it isn’t particularly funny.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re counter-asserting, but not answering the reasoning.
Where do you find the idea of ‘unless’ in the text? It certainly isn’t present in the parallel example I offered, is it?
I think you get the unless from considerations of what would be workable, what would be in the spirit of the Constitution, what would match with subsequent practice, etc. But I can’t abide by your insisting the unless is in the text itself–the unless has to be (and is correctly) read into it, not read out of it.
You are just distracting here from addressing my statement.
There is no time limit cited, and that means you are wrong. The text requires that they participate. They may do this by trying to make it go on forever. If that’s what they have to do then it demonstrates they are part of it, and that’s what the text says.
I don’t know why you are citing my feelings all the time as if I have not stated a case and as if you have. You are being disingenuous about your own “feelings” but we all know that.
You and some others have merely parroted over and over and over that “the senate must approve a nominee.” Regardless of what anyone says, basically like a bot.
I repeat, that is not what anyone here is saying. That is what you would call a straw man.
You are repeating that the senate does not have to automatically approve a nominee. Is there any reason why you have to say this every time you post? Are you arguing an actual point? You are acting like someone with one shoe nailed to the floor.