# Why does Condoleeza Rice have to be confirmed by the Senate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 17, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309 "2004-11-17T18:33:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/1 "2004-11-17T18:33:47Z")
I was under the impression the Cabinet members served at the pleasure of the President, and that no confirmation was necessary, yet Pres. Bush says he believes Dr. Rice’s confirmation hearings will go smoothly? Do they do confirmation hearings for all the cabinet positions, or just Sec of State? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/2 "2004-11-17T18:38:31Z")
From the constitution (under “The Presidency”): > [@](#): > > He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, 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. my bolding. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/3 "2004-11-17T18:51:53Z")
It only takes a simple majority to confirm…Rice won’t have any problems at all. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/4 "2004-11-17T19:11:31Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > I was under the impression the Cabinet members served at the pleasure of the President, and that no confirmation was necessary, yet Pres. Bush says he believes Dr. Rice’s confirmation hearings will go smoothly? > > Do they do confirmation hearings for all the cabinet positions, or just Sec of State? All Cabinet secretaries require Senate confirmation, and some other positions do as well. As John Mace quoted, the constitution says that Senate approval is needed for all official positions created by law unless Congress specifically waives that requirement. They’ve never waived the requirement when new Cabinet departments are created, as far as I know. Ed ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/5 "2004-11-17T19:31:41Z")
It’s part of the whole “checks and balances” thing. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/6 "2004-11-17T19:43:04Z")
The converse is not true, however: the President does not need approval of Congress to fire a Cabinet officer. As the OP says, they serve at the pleasure of the President. This was established by the failure of the Andrew Johnson impeachment when he fought the Tenure of Office Act (although the Act wasn’t formally repealed until 1887). [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/imp\_tenure.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/imp_tenure.html) > [@](#): > > The Tenure of Office Act, passed over the veto of President Andrew Johnson on March 2, 1867, provided that all federal officials whose appointment required Senate confirmation could not be removed without the consent of the Senate. When the Senate was not in session, the Act allowed the President to suspend an official, but if the Senate upon its reconvening refused to concur in the removal, the officila must be reinstated in his position. It was not entirely clear whether the Act applied to cabinet officials appointed by a previous president, such as Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, a Lincoln appointee. > > In the summer of 1867, with Congress not in session, Andrew Johnson decided the time had finally come to replace Edwin Stanton with a new secretary of war. Stanton had become increasingly at odds with Johnson and the rest of his cabinet, and had been conspiring with Radical Republicans in Congress to thwart Johnson’s policies on Reconstruction, which were considered too soft by the Radicals. On August 5, 1867, Johnson sent Stanton the following message: “Public considerations of high character constrain me to say that your resignation as Secretary of War will be accepted.” Stanton refused to resign, forcing Johnson to send Stanton a second letter suspending him from office, ordering that he cease all exercise of authority, and transferring power to a new secretary of war, Ullysses S. Grant. > > On January 3, 1868, the new Congress met and refused to concur in the removal of stanton by a vote of 35 to 16. The President, however, refused to accept the Senate’s decision, believing the Tenure of Office Act to be an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the executive. Hoping to obtain judicial review of the Act’s constitutionality, Johnson on February 21, 1868 appointed General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the Army, to the post of secretary of war. Stanton balked at leaving the office he had reoccupied since January. Charles Sumner, one of the Senate’s leading Radical Republicans, sent Stanton a one word telegram: “Stick.” Impeachment proceedings began within days. > > Although both Presidents Ullysses Grant and James Garfield complained strenuously about the Tenure of Office Act, the Act was not repealed until 1887, at the urging of then President Grover Cleveland. > > In 1926, in the case of Myers vs. United States, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, held unconstitutional a law requiring the consent of the Senate for removal of certain non-Cabinet officials. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/7 "2004-11-17T20:04:39Z")
I’m not a Constitution lawyer, but I’d guess the President can appoint anyone at his discretion to act as Secretary of State. If President Bush called me on the phone and asked me to be Secretary of State, I agreed and sent a military jet immediately to fly me to Washington, what could Congress do? Is not the president commander in chief of the armed forces? If he ordered them to recognize me as acting Secretary of State, could they refuse? While Congress could refuse to formally approve me as Secretary of State, I’d think the president could order that I be acting Secretary of State. What if Congress refused to approve anyone the president appointed? In that case, should foreign nations refuse to acknowledge the authority of an acting Secretary of State with the full approval of the POTUS? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/8 "2004-11-17T20:25:49Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I’m not a Constitution lawyer, but I’d guess the President can appoint anyone at his discretion to act as Secretary of State. The constitution, in conjunction with existing law, says no. > [@](#): > > If President Bush called me on the phone and asked me to be Secretary of State, I agreed and sent a military jet immediately to fly me to Washington, what could Congress do? Is not the president commander in chief of the armed forces? If he ordered them to recognize me as acting Secretary of State, could they refuse? That would be an illegal and unconstitutional order, and could legitimately be refused by the armed forces. > [@](#): > > While Congress could refuse to formally approve me as Secretary of State, I’d think the president could order that I be acting Secretary of State. What if Congress refused to approve anyone the president appointed? Then there would be no legal Secretary of State until the president appointed someone the Senate would confirm. > [@](#): > > In that case, should foreign nations refuse to acknowledge the authority of an acting Secretary of State with the full approval of the POTUS? The Secretary of State has no authority over foreign nations, only over U.S. foreign policy. Foreign nations would be very unlikely to conduct serious business with a Secretary of State whose credentials for the office were seen as being illegal. Your questions basically apply to any situation in which the President seeks to carry out unconstitutional and illegal activities. He can order the military to carry them out, but they are not under obligation to do so. ---
**Author:** ![nivlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@nivlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nivlac)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/9 "2004-11-17T20:26:07Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I’m not a Constitution lawyer, but I’d guess the President can appoint anyone at his discretion to act as Secretary of State. If President Bush called me on the phone and asked me to be Secretary of State, I agreed and sent a military jet immediately to fly me to Washington, what could Congress do? Is not the president commander in chief of the armed forces? If he ordered them to recognize me as acting Secretary of State, could they refuse? While Congress could refuse to formally approve me as Secretary of State, I’d think the president could order that I be acting Secretary of State. What if Congress refused to approve anyone the president appointed? In that case, should foreign nations refuse to acknowledge the authority of an acting Secretary of State with the full approval of the POTUS? You’re saying that the President should defy the Constitution? That he not abide by a vote of the Senate that rejected his nominee to be Secy of State? I smell impeachment. Fortunately, the rule of law will prevail. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/10 "2004-11-17T20:27:29Z")
It’s not just a rubber stamp. The Senate has refused to confirm several past Presidnetial nominations of cabinet officials. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/11 "2004-11-17T20:32:38Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I’m not a Constitution lawyer, but I’d guess the President can appoint anyone at his discretion to act as Secretary of State. If President Bush called me on the phone and asked me to be Secretary of State, I agreed and sent a military jet immediately to fly me to Washington, what could Congress do? Is not the president commander in chief of the armed forces? If he ordered them to recognize me as acting Secretary of State, could they refuse? While Congress could refuse to formally approve me as Secretary of State, I’d think the president could order that I be acting Secretary of State. What if Congress refused to approve anyone the president appointed? In that case, should foreign nations refuse to acknowledge the authority of an acting Secretary of State with the full approval of the POTUS? The President cannot order Congress to do anything. Well, he could try but since the President has no authority over the Legislative Branch, Congress can thumb its nose at any “order” a President may foolishly give. If the President went ahead and attempted to override a non-confirmation of one of his cabinet secretaries by placing him/her into office anyway, you would see a constitutional fight. The President would lose. As an aside, the reason for requiring Rice’s confirmation, notwithstanding **John Mace’s** constitutional clarification, is that all of a president’s political appointments expire at the end of the term. So even if a president is reelected, all political appointments from a first term are null and void for a second term, unless reappointed for that second term (and in the case of cabinet officials, a required confirmation by the Senate). ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/12 "2004-11-17T20:33:18Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Then there would be no legal Secretary of State until the president appointed someone the Senate would confirm. I mentioned “acting” Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State suddenly drops dead, cannot the president appoint an acting Secreatary of State? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/13 "2004-11-17T20:38:51Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I mentioned “acting” Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State suddenly drops dead, cannot the president appoint an acting Secreatary of State? There are Assistant and Under-secretary type people to fill in in the meantime, I’m not sure if you’d want an official interim secretary. The Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate have both said they expect Rice to be confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![dasgupta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@dasgupta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasgupta)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/14 "2004-11-17T20:42:21Z")
It’s my understanding that the senate must confirm the SoS and other cabinet members for the same reason they still confirm ambassadors. In the good old days, Presidential orders and policy could be weeks or months away due to the lack of communication or quick travel. Thus, ambassadors (and the SoS) would not just be representing the United States; for all intensive purposes, they would BE the United States as far as the negotiations were concerned. Important to pick someone who knows what to say and what not to say without orders from above, and not a Presidential lap dog. ---
**Author:** ![dasgupta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@dasgupta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasgupta)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/15 "2004-11-17T20:43:28Z")
On second read, the above was not meant to imply that Condi is a Presidential lap dog. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/16 "2004-11-17T20:52:53Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I mentioned “acting” Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State suddenly drops dead, cannot the president appoint an acting Secreatary of State? The President would not appoint an “acting” Secretary of State. If a Secretary resigned, I presume the next in line at the Department of State would fill the “acting” role until a successor was confirmed by the Senate. And the Assistant Secretaries and Undersecretaries are also subject to Senate confirmation. Therefore any “acting” Secretary of State would have been previously approved by the Senate (at a lower level.) ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/17 "2004-11-17T21:18:45Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > all political appointments from a first term are null and void for a second term, unless reappointed for that second term Cite? Actually, this is a trick question – you’ll never be able to find a cite because it just ain’t so. Presidential appointments do not expire at the end of the president’s term, whether the president continues in office or not. Appointees, once confirmed, remain in their position until they are fired, resign, or die. Their time in office does not automatically expire at the end of their appointing president’s term. Because presidents want to put in their own team, the Cabinet secretaries always leave when the office changes hands, but that’s not constitutionally required. If President Bush chooses to keep some of his politicals in through the second term, he’ll just let them continue in office. Only the new officeholders for those offices where he replaces the incumbent must be confirmed. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/18 "2004-11-17T21:26:49Z")
For the record, Dr. Rice’s first name is Condoleezza with two Zs! ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/19 "2004-11-17T21:37:37Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > the constitution says that Senate approval is needed for all official positions created by law unless Congress specifically waives that requirement. They’ve never waived the requirement when new Cabinet departments are created, as far as I know. If you take a look at the section of the Constitution **John** was kind enough to quote (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, by the way), you’ll see that “Congress may… 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.” According to the Supreme Court, this means that the Congress can only change the appointment + confirmation default with respect to “inferior officers.” That is, Congress does not have the power to change the appointment procedure for major offices like Cabinet secretaries. Exactly what is an inferior office for which Congress can specify a procedure and what isn’t is not exactly clear, but clearly if _any_ non-inferior office exists, Secretary of State (the oldest and most powerful appointed office in the land) must be one. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/20 "2004-11-17T21:39:42Z")
There is a Deputy Secretary of State who serves under the Secretary. This position is currently held by [Richard Armitage](http://www.state.gov/s/d/). The Deputy would step in and handle the function of the absent Secretary until the Senate confirms the new nomination. > [@](#): > > The Deputy Secretary serves as the principal deputy, adviser, and alter ego to the Secretary of State; serves as Acting Secretary of State in the Secretary’s absence; and assists the Secretary in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy and in giving general supervision and direction to all elements of the Department. Specific duties and supervisory responsibilities have varied over time. See this [Organization Chart](http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/7926.htm). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309.md?page=2)