I was just reading about Obama’s selection for Attorney General, and that the Senate has to confirm. Just what does that mean? Why can’t the Executive Branch (i.e., the President) appoint whoever the hell he wants without “confirmation” from the legislative branch? And what if the legislative branch doesn’t confirm? Why does the President of the U.S. have to have his cabinet selections confirmed by the Senate? (And what about the House?)
A. That’s what the Constitution says.
B. It’s one of the balances in the federal government: the President gets to pick anybody he wants to head various things, and the Senate makes sure that these people are qualified to do the job. The House has no role in any of that.
C. Normally, if it’s looking like the nominee will have a rough time getting confirmed, or won’t be confirmed, the President withdraws (or the person declines the offer), and chooses someone else (usually someone more likely to get past). To my knowledge, most of the people who actually get to a vote from the Senate are approved.
On another point, it helps prevent nepotism/cronyism/etc. It hasn’t always worked in the past, but it is an extra safeguard. We don’t want the president hiring his frat pals from college or his brothers and sisters just cuz he likes em. We want competent people in the cabinet.
perfect example of this was Grant, great general, terrible president, but due to his popularity after the Civil War was able to bring in all his buddies as cabinet members. Turned out to be a crap idea for everyone involved (though I’m sure the paychecks were good)
Exactly the president I had in mind when I wrote the caveat. He was probably a good guy and not necessarily incompetent, but had quite a few lousy and crooked friends.
Since it’s never out of place to re-read the Constitution, it’s specifically Article 2, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that provides that the President "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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
[bolding by Huerta not the Framers]
Did the framers ever switch to a bold-tip Sharpie for parts of the constitution?
they just used a thicker feather
Well, Kennedy did appoint his brother to the cabinet.
Yeah, but Bobby was actually competent.
Yes, it’s not necessarily nepotism if the brother is the right man for the job.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this sort of appointment no longer allowed?
Nope, it’s not. Though I guess you could make an argument that the Constitution trumps US code, so if a President did nominate a relative to the Cabinet, and the Senate confirmed it, that would overrule the law.
I always like JFK’s quote about that, that he was just giving Bobby some experience as AG before Bobby went out on his own to practice law. 
seodoa:
Only John Hancock ever did.
I’d argue that the very act of nomination violates the law.
When someone asked JFK how he was going to announce the nomination, knowing the controversy it would cause, he smiled and said, “I’ll stick my head out the door at 4am, look both ways down the street, and whisper, ‘It’s Bobby!’”
(Honestly asking)
Do you think that law applies to the President (constitutionally speaking…I see that the law mentions the President)? The Constitution explicitly lays out cabinet appointments and those appointments are vetted by 100 elected officials. The Constitution says nothing about not appointing your relatives.
Congress is within its rights to limit the pool from which the President might pick appointees. It has already done so in terms of limiting appointments only to adults, citizens, nonfelons, etc. Prohibiting the President from appointing a relative is neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional (although we might need to pass a waiver when the next Bobby Kennedy comes along).
Sure but has this ever been tested by a President? Since the Senate has to approve appointments there is already a check in place. If the President nominates a 5 year old I think it likely the Senate will refuse the nomination. Seems a special case compared to all other agencies.