Was Sally Yates appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate? What about Dana Boente?
In your unsupported opinion.
Sally Yates was appointed to her Deputy position with the advice and consent of the Senate. She was not appointed to the AG position with the advice and consent of the Senate. Neither was Dana Boente. Neither of them are (or were) Cabinet members.
You can’t take the advice and consent of the Senate for one position and transfer it to another. If that was possible, then Trump could just take a federal judge that passed the advice and consent of the Senate for his federal judge position and transfer him to the Supreme Court.
It is elementary logic.
-
Are Cabinet members “public Ministers” or “Officers of the United States” or both?
-
Does the Constitution require “public Ministers” and “Officers of the United States” be subject to Senate’s “advice and consent”?
-
Has Yates been subject to such “advice and consent”?
QED.
Logic has nothing to do with the Federal government.
You’re still going to need an actual cite for your position.
I gave it above. It’s the Constitution.
Your personal interpretation of the Constitution. Sorry, that’s not a cite.
It is mine and yours and everyone’s. Here are the questions you didn’t answer. Would you like to? Or will you refuse to?
-
Are Cabinet members “public Ministers” or “Officers of the United States” or both?
-
Does the Constitution require “public Ministers” and “Officers of the United States” be subject to Senate’s “advice and consent”?
-
Has Yates been subject to such “advice and consent”?
I don’t think that’s a workable analogy, since there is no statutory authorization for succession in the case of Supreme Court justices.
But there is a statutory succession plan in place for the Department of Justice, which specifies which officers become Acting AG in the case of a vacancy. When those officers were appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, was the Senate not also consenting to their potentially becoming Acting AG, and therefore a Cabinet officer, in the event of a vacancy?
This really isn’t the place for a debate. If you are unable to provide a cite for your position, you are free to start a thread in Great Debates where you can propound your personal constitutional theories.
Ah refusal to answer. As I expected.
You still haven’t provided a cite.
No, since, if the President wants the acting AG to continue as a permanent AG, the “advice and consent” of the Senate is AFAIU still required.
His flawed interpretation of the Constitution is his cite :rolleyes:
It is true that the president must obtain new advice and consent if he wants to appoint a new AG. But there is no requirement that he do so in any hurry. Past presidents have left acting officers in charge for lengthy periods. As an example, Hershel Gober served as Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs for over a year, split between two occasions. Currently, the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 allows Senate-confirmed junior officers to serve as acting department heads for up to 300 days in the event of a presidential transition.
In the event of a non-transition vacancy, there is a statutory succession order which includes no time limit. While they are an acting secretary, they have full authority over their departments, provide advice to the president, attend Cabinet meetings, testify before Congress, and do all the other things a federal department head is expected to do.
It is traditional, though not legally required, that acting secretaries not make major decisions or policy changes. But they are certainly able to if they want.
I can find no justification, either legal or traditional, for relegating acting department heads to some second-class category.
Which has nothing to do with the principle that to be a Cabinet member you have to be confirmed by the Senate for the position. It’s right there in the Constitution, as I explained, point by point.
Once again, you haven’t provided any cite beyond your personal opinion.
Okay, so if you want to keep this narrow, who appointed her to the position of Acting Attorney General?
Trump. But as the Constitution requires, in order to be a Cabinet member, she needs to be confirmed by the Senate. If Trump wanted her to be a Cabinet member, he’d submit her to the confirmation by the Senate.
As I pointed out in the 3 points above, confirmation by the Senate is a requirement to be a Cabinet member. I am not sure why you all are arguing with that. It’s right there in the Constitution.
That’s the key point. It’s not like she fell into the position and he replaced her for the interim. He asked her to stay on as acting AG and as such she was a member of his cabinet.