Congress Relinquishes the Advise and Consent Roll of Senate

[hornadylnl]

Don't worry, the tea party will save us. 38 tea party endorsed reps voted for this bill and 13 abstained. Does anyone still believe that the tea party hasn't been coopted by the establishment?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/2/votes/537/

 

[hornadylnl]

I wonder why Ron Paul didn't vote? I'm sure he has a reason although it's probably not likely that I'll agree with it.

 

[buckstopshere]

and now the house completes the deed. just waiting on his excellency to stamp it "DONE".

Gary Johnson would veto this. Just sayin....

 

[cobber]

On July 31st, the House of Representatives passed a bill (261-116) that ends the consent process for [some] Presidential appointees by the U.S. Senate. The Senate passed this overwhelmingly in 2011. The President is expected to sign this into law.

Just curious, before we all drink the purple kool-aid, has everyone read the bill (I perused S.679 for my reading enjoyment)? The positions no longer requiring confirmation are not cabinet level positions, that I can see. For instance, the Treasurer of the United States is not the same thing as the Secretary of the Treasury.

I can't remember the last time when the nomination of the Appalachian Regional Commission; Alternate Federal Co-Chairman caused an enormous political firestorm. Maybe if BHO appointed Ahmadinejad it might.

Now it would have been really revolutionary (erm) if the bill had eliminated all of these positions. It probably would not have affected the operations of the federal government, and would have saved a few pennies to boot.

 

[traderdan]

As unimportant as we may feel that some of these positions are...no doubt they have real effects on people and industry at a grass-roots level....I suspect that this will make it easier for the currently elected party to reward the loyal,and twist the arms of the opponents,without supervision....

 

[cobber]

As unimportant as we may feel that some of these positions are...no doubt they have real effects on people and industry at a grass-roots level....I suspect that this will make it easier for the currently elected party to reward the loyal,and twist the arms of the opponents,without supervision....

I'm not sure how far down the food chain the advise and consent logically needs to go. IF Congress had simply eliminated all these positions, would people here be claiming that was an unconstitutional act?

I really doubt whether the Senate was paying all that much attention to the vast majority of nominees for these positions in the past.

And yes they are consequential, but that really goes to the sheer size and scope of present-day federal powers, and not whether or not the Senate confirms a few bureaucrats.

It's not like patronage doesn't exist in both parties, at all levels of government. I doubt whether having the Senate involved in this particular process made much of a dent one way or the other.

In any event, I'm still not convinced that this bill is a constitutional crisis. (Neither is it a reform of course.)

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This is why we have to vote republican this fall.

We need to vote for our Republic before its fall, you mean?

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

This is why we have to vote republican this fall.

lawlz

Its worked so well so far, whats the worst that could happen?

 

[Hotdoger]

lawlz

Its worked so well so far, whats the worst that could happen?

And Ron Paul has acomplished so much...

 

[VikingWarlord]

54 of them DIDN'T VOTE? On something this big?

 

[Expat]

First, I don't like that they did this. But let's take a breath. What they did, is not unconstitutional. They kind of admit that in the article. The Constitution says:

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.

I object to the Congress giving away their power to what is already becoming an Imperial Presidency. Obama already thinks he can rule by Imperial Fiat and this will just further embolden him. Who knows what crackpot communists he will install in these positions without any oversight.

I was glad to see my Congressman, Marlin Stutzman, voted against it.

 

[hornadylnl]

First, I don't like that they did this. But let's take a breath. What they did, is not unconstitutional. They kind of admit that in the article. The Constitution says:


I object to the Congress giving away their power to what is already becoming an Imperial Presidency. Obama already thinks he can rule by Imperial Fiat and this will just further embolden him. Who knows what crackpot communists he will install in these positions without any oversight.

I was glad to see my Congressman, Marlin Stutzman, voted against it.

Can you name a single dem appointment that the repubs have blocked? The dems are the only ones with enough stones to fillibuster or flat out refuse a vote over an opposing president. As I said before, repubs should love this. That way they can actually get their appointees seated.

 

[hornadylnl]

Even if the constitutional for congress to give up this power, advising and consenting is a part of their costitututional duties. It should take precedence over all the unconstitutional bull **** they're doing now.

"Excuse me Mr.President. We're too busy doing things that's aren't our job to do our real job. Would you please do it for us?"

 

[cobber]

First, I don't like that they did this. But let's take a breath. What they did, is not unconstitutional.

^^^this^^^^

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.