:smack: Of course. I keep forgetting the UK is a bit different to the rest of us. Here in Oz you need to be elected to the upper house - not simply born to it or appointed. (And Queensland doesn’t even have an upper house at all.)
Elevation to a peerage as a way of making it possible to appoint someone not otherwise elected seems to have a bit of history (not just Mandelson) but it is rare. None the less, you can’t be a member of cabinet without being a member of one house or the other.
You can in Canada, as a matter of law, be appointed to Cabinet without being in either house. However, if you’re not appointed to the Senate, there is a strong constitutional convention that you get yourself into the Commons as quickly as possible by a by-election. If you don’t get into the Commons reasonably quickly you have to resign from Cabinet, as was the case with the Defence Minister in WWII, Andrew McNaughton, who failed to win a seat in either a by-eleciton or a general election.
The article lists the Acting Cabinet members as members of the Cabinet, so yes.
I guess I should have been more specific not to allow for weaseling: Do you accept this statement in the article you cited?
“All Cabinet members are nominated by the President and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority.”
You can in Australia too, but subject to s. 64 of the Constitution:
As far as I can remember, since that first general election, the only person to be appointed as a minister without being a member of the Parliament was John Gorton, who was a senator when appointed as Prime Minister in 1968 (following the disappearance of Harold Holt), but resigned as a senator to stand for election to Holt’s seat in the House. Thus he was a Minister for about 3 weeks without being either a senator or MHR.
I accept the listing of the Acting Cabinet members as Cabinet members.
Why do you accept that statement as being authoritative but not the rest of the article?
I see. Maybe you shouldn’t cite articles that contradict what you’re claiming then.
I accept that the article is contradictory (and as I said before, it is Wikipedia, thus not authoritative at all). You are really trying to ignore that.
So are you. You cite one part as authoritative but not the other.
The Wiki cite also says
so this is just dickering about semantics. Trump kept the last AG around while his own AG got confirmed. She decided she wasn’t going to carry out his policies, so he fired her.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you have any evidence that an acting department head does not exercise the full powers of the office during her tenure?
That’s not relevant to whether she’s Trump’s “Cabinet member”. Yes, since she was acting AG, she formally had “full powers of the office” (subject to being fired of course). Informally, temporary acting AGs (and other temporary acting Secretaries) do not involve themselves in any controversial decisions, precisely because they are not Cabinet members. And if they did, they’d be rightly summarily fired and replaced with another temporary replacement, which is exactly what happened in this case.
Hypothetical: if Trump had decided to keep on ALL of Obama’s appointees as his permanent department heads, would you still claim that they weren’t his cabinet members?
You appear to be bickering over semantics. Even if Trump did not appoint her as AG, she’s still serving as AG under Trump. That makes her a member of Trump’s cabinet.
They would be, since they were confirmed by the Senate to those positions. Yates wasn’t.
No, what makes someone a Cabinet member is being confirmed by the Senate to be one. A President cannot appoint someone to be a Cabinet member without Senate confirming that member to that position.
Where, precisely, does this specific definition of “Cabinet member” arise?
The Constitution
“…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”
Cabinet members are both “public Ministers” and “Officers of the United States”. Thus they require “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. Without such “Advice and Consent”, they are not Cabinet members.
Trumps own website makes no distinction between acting and not acting.
–bolding mine