No, they don’t, and even if they did, that wouldn’t change a thing. We live in a democracy, and are governed by laws, not men. And by the same token, I can’t really complain about what is happening-- either by the Senate or the Prez. In the end, we can sort it out in the courts if individuals think they’ve been wronged by this.
I do take note that Obama is doing something unprecedented, but hardly by much. Every president tests the limits of power, and this is hardly much of a test. If he goes too far, we have a remedy for that, too.
No, we don’t live in a Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic. And we are governed by laws made by men. In this case, Republicans wanted to amend the law so that it wielded less political power away from Congress’s control.
Fine. Change “democracy” to “democratic republic” in my post, and it’s still right.
So? You don’t understand the meaning of that phrase. The laws may be made by men, but they’re still laws and “men” (ie, those in government) don’t get to just ignore the laws because they don’t like them.
Doesn’t matter. The current law is the law until the do change it.
Right. That’s where I’m at on this. The Republicans were using a procedural quirk to block an appointment they couldn’t vote down. The President used a procedural quirk to get the appointment in without putting it before the Senate.
At an innate level, both of them are doing things that are basically parliamentary tricks/procedural quirks that sort of exploit underlying technicalities/procedural loopholes in our system of government.
The only real objections I have are when people try to say that one side is basically trying to “erode the checks and balances of the constitution.” That’s just patently false. Recess appointments are not a check (by design) on the legislative power of approving the President’s appointments to high federal offices. Technically, the President using recess appointments to get by a recalcitrant Senate is actually undermining the intention that the Senate approve the President’s appointments and that recess appointments be used in times when the Senate is unable to meet to discuss an appointee. This isn’t a vacancy that came during the recess, this is a vacancy that has been around for some time. The real intention of the recess appointment was to fill recess vacancies, not to fill whatever vacancies you couldn’t fill due to political problems during the regular session.
Essentially parts of our Federal government have long operated based on convention, tradition, and gentleman’s agreement to not throw wrenches into everything. Those are now out the window more often than they aren’t. The minority in the Senate has always had the ability to hijack the Senate. They are now choosing to do so more often and on more issues. The Senate has always had the ability to remain perpetually in session, they are just now choosing to do so all the time. The Senate has always had the ability to essentially refuse to approve a Presidential appointment for the sole purpose of making sure an agency doesn’t have a head and thus undermining that agency. The President has always had a few different trick plays up his sleeve for getting past these things.
What I want is a system designed with the least amount of partisan power attached to it.
That should be a universal goal.
The DOD is not a particularly good example because of their roll within the government but lets look at it as an example of how power can be abused. What if the President decided that Homeland Security laws entitled him to use the military as domestic extensions of the bill and installs a Czar to do his bidding in a new organization that taps directly into the military for support.
Homeland Security agents begin surprise inspections of social security offices or other Federal agencies to the point where we are surrounded by armed extensions of the government ot the point we start to look like Egypt.
At what point would you think a balance of power within the houses would be prudent?
They WANTED to amend the law. The law has not been amended, and may never be. Maybe this documentary will help you understand the process: - YouTube
And you do know that in modern American English “Democracy” does not exclusively mean “the system of government used in classical Athens”?
My particular job does have some responsibility, thank you very much. How many jobs have you had where you had to take a test to prove that you could do the job? In my field, you show that you can do the job by talking to the hiring manager about the job, and showing your previous experience. Nobody gives a shit about your scholastic aptitude, they care if you can do the job or not.
Now how exactly do you think we should select our leaders? By whoever gets the best score on an exam? Are you fucking kidding me?
Well I think it does matter in the greater scheme of things and Republicans ARE trying to change it. It’s disingenuous of one party to say FUCK your legislation regarding an issue and then expect cooperation on the issue.
Actually the last 2 jobs I’ve had required a test. And your last sentence is in conflict with itself and also with the process of hiring politicians. Scholastic aptitude is indeed a qualifier for a job. To be an engineer, or an accountant or electrician or a doctor there are certifications involved to prove competency. There are zero such requirements to be a politician and by extension, run the country.
Gee. You complain about “Czars”, so I’m guessing you think that the so-called “Czars” are presidential appointees that aren’t subject to advise and consent by the Senate, and exericize unreviewed executive power? Yeah, except that’s bullshit. You can call the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy a “Drug Czar” but calling someone a “Czar” doesn’t make them a hereditary monarch.
So Republicans can count on your support when they come to power and replace the director in question who then proceeds to trash everything done by his predecessor?
So only certified professional politicians should be allowed to run for office? Boy you conservatives are really confusing sometimes.
As for whether the Republicans can count on my support, you do realize that there are hundreds of positions in the federal government that are appointed by the President, yes? Lots of these positions require Senate confirmation, but plenty of others don’t. And yes, the President whatever his party is entitled to appoint whoever they like, and if the Senate doesn’t approve of the appointment they can vote to not confirm the appointee. This is why we have Senate approval.
What doesn’t make sense is for the Senate to refuse to vote to confirm or not confirm a Presidential appointee, because they want the office to remain vacant. If they don’t think the office should exist, they should pass legislation to remove the office.
And yes, if a president with a different platform than their predecessor becomes elected, then they will appoint subordinates with different platforms, who will then change the way the agencies are run. A former president doesn’t get to govern once they’re out of office, the new president does. This is how our sacred Constitution works. If the current legislature doesn’t like the current law, they pass a bill and change the law. Didn’t you watch that documentary I linked to?
It makes perfect sense to change a bad arrangement before entering into it.
Not all departments wield large amounts of political power and not all departments have the same mix of administrators. In this case, it’s seen as an agency that wields great political power.
I’ll ask you again, Can Republicans count on your support for their choice of Director given the power to undue the previous administrations policies. Or do you think that a balance of power is useful in situations like this and worth pursuing in an attempt to reach common ground that works for both parties both now and in the future.
No, they can’t count on my support. Suppose I was a Senator, and it’s 2013, and President Paul wants to appoint someone to this particular office. I might not support his choice, and therefore would vote against confirming that particular appointee. Heck, I might continue to vote against nominee after nominee, because everyone nominated by President Paul I might consider unacceptable.
However, that’s not what’s happening in this case. The President has a nominee. The Senate refuses to hold a vote to confirm or reject the nominee. Therefore, the position is vacant.
Your position is, that the mere existence of the office is such a travesty that the position should remain vacant, until and unless legislation passes to abolish the position. And that it doesn’t matter that the full Senate itself would vote to confirm the nominee, if such a vote were scheduled.
It seems to me that if the Senate really didn’t want this position filled, they would vote to not confirm the nominee. That they would vote to confirm the nominee is proof that the Senate as a body does not consider the office illegitimate. Therefore, the fact that you personally believe the office is illegitimate is irrelevant, since you’re just a guy on the internet and your vote doesn’t count any more than any other guy on the internet.
Then re-write the Constitution to require that cabinet agencies be run by committees and not presidential appointees. Also, re-write the laws to make committees in charge of hundreds of other government offices. I’m sure it will be a smashing success.
Your argument against replacing the Defense Secretary with a committee is that some future President could illegally seize power that does not belong to him? I’m sorry, that’s not even coherent.
Throughout this whole “let’s appoint a committee” argument you totally ignore the fact that up until a couple days ago, the agency in question is being run by a single person, the Secretary of the Treasury. Don’t want someone to be confirmed by the Senate to run this agency? Well, tough nuggets, because someone confirmed by the Senate, the Secretary of the Treasury, has been running it since the bureau from establishment up through last week.
It is also pretty funny how the argument about “but this is such a powerful agency!” gets thrown around when it is politically convenient. “Oh noes! Some bureaucrats are going to take and file complaints about credit card companies! Booga-booga-booga, here comes socialism!”
The President has the power, under the Constitution, to make recess appointments. If the Senate minority has its way, he would never be able to exercise that power. That is unconstitutional.
:dubious: So the Senate is obligated to recess from time to time so that the president can make appointments they don’t like?
I suppose the president is obligated to commit high crimes and misdemeanors, too. After all, it would be unconstitutional for him to prevent Congress from exercising its power to impeach him.
No, but holding pseudo-sessions, where an actual quorum is absent, and most members are out of town, and pretending that this is a legitimate Senatorial session may be unconstitutional. May not. The Senate gets to determine its own rules, but when those rules infringe on the Executive’s powers, we have a good old-fashioned constitutional crisis.
(Nothing could be finer than a crisis which is minor. Charles Osgood.)