Obama signs bill exempting presidential appointees from Senate confirmation

Daily Caller ^ | 8-11-12 | Paul Connor

[dennisw]

life in DC is a non-stop party. Partying on our taxes. Visit and you will see lots of construction cranes on the horizon. No recession there and the in the surrounding suburbs, some of the nation’s wealthiest counties ring DC

[A Navy Vet]

Can’t remember who made those quotes, but it definitely came from the Continental Congress, amongst other writings of redress to King George. Yup, many points fit right in with our current king bambi.

[Lazamataz]

[This ability was in a bill that] was passed by the Republican-controlled House 216-116 in July.

Whiskey.

Tango.

Foxtrot.

Over.

[Old Sarge]

"(The President) 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."Now null and void.

[The Duke]

MONEY_FER_NOTHING_AND_CHECKS_FER_FREE_PING!

[HollyB]

Thought you may be interested in this thread.

[lonevoice]

The barbarians aren’t at the gate, they’re in the House!

[Revel]

This was first made possible by a GOP who has to respect for the constitution. The GOP is simply a covert operation for the left.

[antceecee]

The PEOPLE have a case against this tyranny. They are NOT represented fully in these appointments by the executive.

[BIGLOOK]

All these edicts come on Fridays.....ever notice that, Sandy? On weekends there’s hardly any reporting and by Monday it’s old news.

[lowbridge]

Bump

[proud American in Canada]

“this ain’t Semmens?”

_________________

I sure hope so. If not, it is really unbelievable and, as someone said, outrageous.

“Houston, we have a problem.”

[afraidfortherepublic]

I suspect that this was snuck into a much larger bill.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

This doesn’t bother me that much. It goes both ways. Remember when the Dems held up Republican appointees just to screw Bush? The Dems are more likely than Republicans to play games with these hearings. The bottom line is, if you want conservatives to control executive appointments, elect a conservative as president.

[SandRat]

That’s how O-Bummer thinks he can get by with going cheating.

[afraidfortherepublic]

And as your Senator.

[CottShop]

...but the Congress may grant the preside3nt the power to do so- meaning, as I understand it, that it’s an incident issued vesting- not a once for all vesting- meanign everytime the president wants ot appoint he must call on congress to allow him to do so without their confirmation being needed-

Unless I’m misunderstanding hte issue- I don’;t beleive congress granted him that privilege this time- and he just took it on himself to ignore trheir right to be the oens to allow him to do so

[CottShop]

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.

Again, simply because congress may have vested another president to do so in the past doesn’t give present presidents the same vested right to do so now- unless there was an amendment established io nthe consitution allowing all future presidents to appouint without cionfirmation by goncress

[CottShop]

A ‘vested interest’ is like a will where someoen can’t inherit $$ until theyu turn 21 or whatever the will states- that’s a ‘vested itnerest’ and it’s a legally binding promise for that person alone- and no other- the brother or sister can not collect if the will states that only the one sibling is entitled to the money-

Now, IF congress has vested all future presidents the right to appooint without confirmation- then that’s another story, however, section two of article 2 does not state that congress has doen any such thing, and only appears to give copgnress the right to allow the president to do so in idividual cases and on a case by case basis- not cart blanc power to appoint hwenever he feels liek without consent of congress- the key point in the following “vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper,” is “As they see proper’ strongly suggests that it’s a case by case issue, not a once for all granting of the privilege to appoint without confirmation proceedings

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but I’ve seen nothign that grasnts presidents the cart blanc power to appoint without confirmation whenever they like

[Political Junkie Too]

I think the issue is that Congress delegated to the President the authority to nominate without confirmation several MINOR posts only. I see your point asking was it just for these vacant posts this time only, or for all future Presidents for these posts only? Without reading the bill, it's probably the latter, that Congress deemed these posts to be minor enough as to not warrant confirmation hearings.

Since no Congress can bind a future Congress, a future Congress can pass another bill retaking these nominations back for confirmation. If a future President vetoes that bill (intending to keep the power), then Congress would have to override that veto to take the power back.

-PJ