# 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:** 2
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/21 "2004-11-17T21:46:16Z")
Actually, **Colibri** , the president can appoint someone to be “Acting” in an office. You’re right that typically the next person in line becomes “Acting Poohbah” whenever the Poohbah leaves office until such time as the Senate confirms the new Poohbah nominee, but presidents have filled offices with Acting officers who hadn’t been previously in line. President Clinton, for instance, made Bill Lann Lee Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights for a time; he’d wanted Lee to hold the office but his confirmation was blocked in the Senate, so Clinton just put him to work without formal confirmation (and later appointed him via recess appointment). I believe Clinton Solicitor General Walter Dellinger was actually the Acting SG for much (all?) of his time in office because Jesse Helms refused to let his nomination be voted on. –Cliffy ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/22 "2004-11-17T21:47:28Z")
P.S. Armitage just quit too. –Cliffy, again ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/23 "2004-11-17T22:15:24Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > 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. So you’re saying that if Madeleine Albright had decided to stay on after Clinton left office, she could still be Secretary of State under Bush for as long as she chose? Has something like this ever happened? ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/24 "2004-11-17T22:17:37Z")
Gah, sorry, missed the “fired” bit there. I suppose my second question could still be answered, but it seems a lot less likely now that I’m reading **Cliffy** ’s post correctly. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/25 "2004-11-17T22:26:13Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > 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). **Cliffy** ’s answers above, debunking **Duckster** ’s statement, are absolutely correct. For further information, including citations, see [Must US Cabinet Secretaries be re-appointed after election?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269110) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/26 "2004-11-17T22:32:44Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Couldn’t one interpret that as meaning “inferior to the President”? In that case, the S of S would qualify. Though it is of course a moot point, since even if Congress could vest that appointment entirely in the President, they have not and are not likely to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/27 "2004-11-17T22:39:32Z")
There are three major parts to this puzzle. 1. The Constitution requires that certain officials be appointed “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” It is up to Congress to determine which positions are subject to this requirement for confirmation. I don’t have an exact number handy, but there are somewhere around 1,000 political positions that require confirmation. Many folks also don’t know that all commissioned officers of the Armed Forces, from 2nd lieutenant to 5-star general, must have their nominations approved by the Senate, as do members of the foreign service (ambassadors and diplomatic staff). 2. The Constitution also allows the President to fill vacancies without Senate confirmation if Congress is not in session at the time of appointment. These appointments expire at the end of each Congress (i.e., the 108th Congress with adjourn within a matter of days, and all recess appointments will then expire. Unless required by law, Presidential appointments, by in large, do not expire at the end of a Congress or the end of a Presidential term. (Certain exceptions in law exist for members of various panels or commissions (like the FCC), various sorts of supposedly non-political positions (like Chairman of the Fed), and for the mandatory retirement of other offices (like maximum ages of service for military officers)) 3. The Vacancies Act regulates who the President may designate as an acting appointee in a particular position. Federal law states that the Preident may NOT choose anyone he likes to serve for positions that require confirmation. If an appointee steps down, there are only three types of people that the President may choose to fill the position: the first assistant to the position vacated; another official who has received Senate confirmation for a different position; or someone above a GS-15 pay level, provided they have been with the agency for more than 90 days. There are also time limits that prevent an acting appointee from holding the position for too long, but those limts get really complicated. The Vacancies Act has been on the books since the Civil War, but it has been amended from time to time. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/28 "2004-11-17T22:44:11Z")
Clarification: in paragraph 2, in which I say that Presidential appointments do not expire at the end of a term, I mean that appointments confirmed by the Senate generally do not expire; but recess appointments do expire. Apologies for any confusion. And sorry, there are on the order of 524 Senate confirmed positions in the Executive Branch. Memory was off by quite a bit. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/29 "2004-11-18T00:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So you’re saying that if Madeleine Albright had decided to stay on after Clinton left office, she could still be Secretary of State under Bush for as long as she chose? Has something like this ever happened? Sure, Henry Kissinger was an example of a Secretary of State who remained in office under two different Presidents. James Wilson was Secretary of Agriculture for sixteen consecutive years (1897-1013) and served under three Presidnets. ---
**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 18, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/30 "2004-11-18T03:34:03Z")
> [@brianmelendez](#): > > **Cliffy** ’s answers above, debunking **Duckster** ’s statement, are absolutely correct. For further information, including citations, see [Must US Cabinet Secretaries be re-appointed after election?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269110) I sit corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/31 "2004-11-18T04:55:10Z")
And I believe John Adams kept most of Washington’s cabinet members. He did it to provide continuity in the new system of government, but it backfired on him. Washington’s appointees tended to view Adams as not-really-the-President, so he had terrible infighting in his adminstration (which was magnified by the fact that Adams’ chief political opponent, Tom Jefferson, was serviing as Adams’ Vice-President, since Jefferson had been the runner-up in the presidential election). ---
**Author:** ![Bleaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Bleaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bleaker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/32 "2004-11-18T06:41:31Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > For the record, Dr. Rice’s first name is Condoleezza with two Zs! Obviously. Condoleeza with one Z would be a ridiculous name. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/33 "2004-11-18T13:08:56Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > It’s not just a rubber stamp. The Senate has refused to confirm several past Presidnetial nominations of cabinet officials. Examples? I need my memory refreshed. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/34 "2004-11-18T13:28:12Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > Examples? I need my memory refreshed. Complete list [here.](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm#10) It’s not a terribly long list, but the precident is well-established. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/35 "2004-11-18T13:41:34Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > Examples? I need my memory refreshed. Three rejections of Clinton nominees come to mind: Zoe E. Baird was Clinton’s choice for Attorney General, and (admittedly not Cabinet positions) Lani Guinier for a Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and Anthony Lake was nominated for CIA Director. Baird looked good when first nominated, but it soon came to light that she had employed an illegal alien to serve as a nanny for her children, and did not to pay the employer’s portion of the social security tax on this employee’s salary. When the information became public she apologized and paid the back taxes. Still, the Senate was disinclined to confirm her, and voted aginst consenting to her appointment. The President had nominated law professor and civil rights activist Lani Guinier, and her confirmation hearings revealed some controversial positions with respect to minorities. Opponents produced articles she had authored calling for minorities to have their own congressional districts, and demanding that should retain veto power over any bill passed by a majority of Americans, affecting them, to which they object. Lake was President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, and he was viewed as too dovish to head the CIA. In the wake of the Ames scandal, stronger hawkish leadership was thought necessary. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/36 "2004-11-18T14:48:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Three rejections of Clinton nominees come to mind: Zoe E. Baird was Clinton’s choice for Attorney General, and (admittedly not Cabinet positions) Lani Guinier for a Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and Anthony Lake was nominated for CIA Director. > > Baird looked good when first nominated, but it soon came to light that she had employed an illegal alien to serve as a nanny for her children, and did not to pay the employer’s portion of the social security tax on this employee’s salary. When the information became public she apologized and paid the back taxes. Still, the Senate was disinclined to confirm her, and voted aginst consenting to her appointment. Actually, the Senate never voted on Zoe Baird’s nomination, which was withdrawn before being brought to a vote. The same is true of several other unsuccessful nominations, which were withdrawn in the face of almost certain rejection. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/37 "2004-11-18T14:53:33Z")
> [@brianmelendez](#): > > Actually, the Senate never voted on Zoe Baird’s nomination, which was withdrawn before being brought to a vote. The same is true of several other unsuccessful nominations, which were withdrawn in the face of almost certain rejection. I must be getting old. The memory is going. I went searching for a cite to prove your ridiculous correction wrong, and was quite embarrassed to discover that you are absolutely correct. Baird’s nomination was withdrawn before a vote – a vote that, as you say, was headed for certain defeat, but that was still theoretical, not actual. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/38 "2004-11-18T15:27:54Z")
That’s all in the link I posted. But this nomination deserves particular attention: > [@](#): > > Name: Caleb Cushing > Nominated by: John Tyler > Nomination Position: Treasury > Date Nominated: March 2, 1843 > Date Rejected: March 3, 1843 > > Vote: 19-27 > > Note: President Tyler responded to the rejection by renominating Cushing twice on the same day, March 3, 1843. Both times, the Senate rejected the nomination, first by a vote of 10-27, and later by a vote of 2-29. IIRC, one of those renominations after the initial rejection was written on a napkin; something like “I nominate Caleb Cushing for Secretary of Treasury, signed, John Tyler.” ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/39 "2004-11-18T16:08:27Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Couldn’t one interpret that as meaning “inferior to the President”? Yes, one could. Indeed, I think such an interpretation is more consistent with the language of the clause, but the law is well-established that “The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes.” [_United States v. Germaine_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=99&invol=508), 99 U.S. 508, 509-10 (1878). –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309/40 "2004-11-18T16:15:34Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Yes, one could. Indeed, I think such an interpretation is more consistent with the language of the clause, but the law is well-established that “The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes.” [_United States v. Germaine_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=99&invol=508), 99 U.S. 508, 509-10 (1878). There actually is some textual support for this longstanding view. The Constitution provides that the President “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices …” (Const., art. II, sec. 2, para. 2.) This provision appears in the paragraph that immediately precedes the paragraph in which the Appointments Clause, with its reference to “inferior Officers,” appears. The “inferior Officers” are thus inferior to the “principal Officers in each of the executive Departments” – that is, the group that is commonly known as the cabinet officers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-condoleeza-rice-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-senate/275309.md?page=3)