Congression confirmation for Rice?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,282
Location
Southern NH
Why?

Perhaps I'm somewhat Constitutionally challenged but why does Congress have to give it's thumb's up for who the President selects for various positions? It seems an obvious violation of the seperation of powers with the Legislative branch having a say in who the executive picks for carrying out it's functions.

Your thoughts?
 
But what law did they violate? Suppose the BATF or any other branch of the executive acts way out of line, Congress reels tham back in, that makes sense, but why meddle when they havent broken any law yet?
 
Article II, Section 2.

...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...
 
The way Senatorial Advice and Consent works is that, after confirmation hearings, the Senate votes to either confirm or deny every Presidential appointee--not just Cabinet Officers. Without such confirmation, the appointee cannot be sworn in to office. The Senators then feel they can recall appointees any time they wish for hearings on any particular matter that strikes their fancy (i.e., anything the MSM glom on to). The purpose of such hearings is mainly to let the pols grandstand and give the appearance they care about doing the right thing. :neener:

OK, I admit some few congresscritters actually do care from time to time about some issues. But their primary purpose in life is still to get re-elected. :cuss:

TC
TFL Survivor
 
I believe the Senate functions to provide concurrence of the States. The Senate was appointed by the States, not elected, when this process was first conceived. I am not sure what difference that makes, except that the elite then had control versus the people via involvement of the elected House. There are other means for the elite ($) to have the last word, such as the Electoral College theoretically overriding the popular vote.
 
... There are other means for the elite ($) to have the last word...(etc)

Actually, the whole point of a Republic is to put speed bumps into what would otherwise be a pure majoritarian process by setting up a careful balance between involved entities.

In case you haven't noticed, purely majoritarian processess tend to degenerate fairly quickly, as people's Rights and limited governmental Powers tend to become whatever 50% +1 person say they are. If 50%+1 say it's your right to wear funny hats, and a governmental Power to ensure that everyone wears their funny hat, it becomes funny hat time pretty quickly.


The original balance was not struck between the "3 branches", it was actually struck against 5:

-The executive
-The judicial
-The congressional
-The States
-The people.

Essentially, the states had the power to appoint the executive, senate and executive officers, via means of their own choosing. Also, they originally had functional control of the pursestrings as well. (He who has the gold makes the rules....)

For all practical purposes, the States have been written out of the balance, now holding only a ceremonial role in the appointment of the executive via the electoral college, having been stripped of their powers otherwise.

As a result, the overall balance of power and money has shifted away from the more local level of the states, where presumably a citizen could have more influence, and is now distantly centered at the fedgov, and this is a source of a great many of our current problems. Pork barrel politics wouldn't have nearly the allure they do now if there was less pork to fight over, and politicians wouldn't be obliged to scramble with each other over getting what they consider to be their fair portion of their citizens money BACK.
 
Boxer and Kerry voted against Rice in the hearings. Boxer will vote against Rice on the Senate floor tomorrow. She'll probably cry for the cameras again, too. Kerry may just vote for Rice on the floor so he can say he voted against her before he voted for her. He seems to have a talent for staking out every available position on any givin issue.
 
Although they were being extremely partisan, using Rice as a representative of all their gripes against the administration, I think Biden was priceless. Boxer will find that the GOP will focus on her defeat in the future. Her points were compelling, but she burned a lot of bridges merely to underline that she had not voted to go to Iraq. Bully for her.

The theory that Kerry will ultimately change his vote is cute but probably accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top