Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Comes Out Against Waiver For Gen. Mattis To Be Defense Head

The hILL ^ | 12/01/16 09:39 PM EST | By Harper Neidig

[drewh]

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) came out against Donald Trump’s selection of retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of Defense, saying she would not support a necessary congressional waiver to allow him to take on the role.

Gillibrand is the first lawmaker to oppose waiving the prohibition on former military officers heading the Pentagon less than seven years after retiring. “While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver,” she said in a statement. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”

Mattis retired in 2013. George Marshall was the only Defense secretary to need a waiver, having been picked by President Truman in 1950, five years after the five-star general stepped down as Army chief of staff

[onona]

Burgs. She is NY, my home state. I are fu**ed

[ptsal]

Democrat Party home of pricks and princesses.

[ToastedHead]

They gave her the torch to carry. It’s a trial run to see if she’s the next potential First Female.

[MotorCityBuck]

☺

[kaehurowing]

we hear that she prefers someone named Barak Hussein Obama* for Secretary of Defense

*note: his true identity is a secret but this is his last-known alias

---

He could replace his Apology Tour with the Surrender Tour.

[LS]

Who gives a crap? We have the votes.

To paraphrase ZEro, “We won the election.”

[Buckeye McFrog]

She is positioning herself as Hillary 2.0 in 2020

[sargon]

The mandatory retirement period was written into law for a reason, so there ought to be a really good reason to waive it.

Well, isn't that quaint. Anyone who knows the Constitution should realize that this so-called "law" is patently unconstitutional on its face. How's that for a waiver?

I'd love for President-elect Trump to use the General Mattis appointment as a test case to dispense with such absurd Congressional overreach...

[Not A Snowbird]

“Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”

As far as I'm concerned, the civilian control of the military rests with the Commander in Chief, not the Defense Secretary.

[DoodleDawg]

Not surprising but she isn’t going to get a lot of support.

[JBW1949]

What, pray tell, was the reason????

[Alberta's Child]

How is it unconstitutional?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Just watch. They may not be able to filibuster the nominee, if the GOP has the good sense to continue Harry Reid’s exception to the filibuster, but they could filibuster the Congressional waiver.

[Timmy]

The constitution does not give Congress control over who the President can nominate. He can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate has approval.

[who knows what evil?]

“While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service..."

(Token) Congresswoman, you are a damned liar.

[sargon]

Because it would limit the President's plenary power to appoint the person of his choice. Congress can always defeat such a nomination. Though this ridiculous law has not yet been tested in the US Supreme Court, the widespread legal consensus is that it will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny...

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. Secretary of Defense is a statutory office of the U.S. government, which means the position only exists because Congress passed a statute to codify it into law. If there were conditions attached to the establishment of this office, then how can it possibly be considered unconstitutional?

[Alberta's Child]

Does Congress have the authority to require the U.S. Attorney General to actually be an attorney?

[manc]

Does this idiot understand Trump is in charge, and he is a civilian?

Anyway the Pentagon would be far more efficient if the military were in charge of the military.

[manc]

Oh she is just sore still, because her pal from the same state never got elected.