Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 12/02/2016 2:16:40 PM PST by 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

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 114th; gillibrand; mattis; oifveterans; trumpcabinet; trumpsecdef; trumptransition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: burghguy

“I bet we pick up 6-8 seats easily.”

Though that is certainly possible, let’s not get ahead of ourselves :-).

Having said that ...

If you want to see a meltdown that rivals 2016, give Trump a supermajority in the Senate and a few additional seats in the House after two years of outstanding accomplishments :-). We all but ended the 1960s this election (or at least isolated most of it to the left coast) ... 2018 could be what breaks the liberal’s backs for a solid decade :-).

All Trump has to do is do what he’s done all his life ... deliver :-). He does that, people will be crawling over broken glass in ‘purple’ states to get Dems out of power :-).


41 posted on 12/02/2016 3:16:12 PM PST by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Does Congress have the authority to require the U.S. Attorney General to actually be an attorney?

Congress has the de facto authority to impose such a requirement in any individual instance via their power of confirmation, I suppose.

Such an AG might be limited in the performance of his or her duties, however. Then again, since AG is an Executive position, and the AG is not someone who actually argues cases in court, that's probably not particularly important.

Similarly, the US Senate clearly has the ability to require that the Secretary of Defense be a civilian for a certain number of years as well, of course, via its Constitutionally granted confirmation power. But a law arbitrarily imposing such a power would still be unconstitutional, because it would infringe on the plenary power of the Chief Executive to nominate the person of his or her choice.

Therefore, all this talk of the necessity of a Congressional waiver is a tempest in a teapot, and, as I mentioned, I'd love to see President Trump prove that by taking it to the Supreme Court rather than meekly requesting a waiver under a law that is clearly not Constitutional...

42 posted on 12/02/2016 3:20:28 PM PST by sargon (The Revolution is ON! Support President-elect Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sargon
I'm not talking about a Senate confirmation. I'm talking about the terms and conditions established by Congress when a cabinet position is created.

I would think Congress certainly has the authority to require the U.S. Attorney General to be an attorney. In fact, the language used when the position was established under the Judiciary Act seems to state clearly that the position must be held by an attorney who has the credentials "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, etc."

I'd love to see President Trump prove that by taking it to the Supreme Court rather than meekly requesting a waiver under a law that is clearly not Constitutional.

Is James Mattis such an asset with no equals in that position that you'd even want someone to waste time and money in a court battle like this? LOL.

43 posted on 12/02/2016 3:29:12 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

yes he makes liberals cringe and cry


44 posted on 12/02/2016 3:37:35 PM PST by rolling_stone (not this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing

Thanks to the Harry Reid Rule (Nuclear Option), no one cares what the Democrats think any more about nominations.


Supposedly Mattis needs 60 votes for a Senate waiver due to his not being out of the service for 7 years. He’ll get it. Just a lot of posturing now.


45 posted on 12/02/2016 3:38:30 PM PST by lodi90 (President Trump - Has a nice ring to it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: drewh

She needs a safe place. She wants John McCain or Lindsey Graham as Secretary of Defense.

Quotes from the new Secretary of Defense
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/02/7-alpha-quotes-trumps-future-secretary-defense-419014


46 posted on 12/02/2016 3:41:01 PM PST by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Is James Mattis such an asset with no equals in that position that you'd even want someone to waste time and money in a court battle like this?

Certainly. It's an important separation of powers issue. And there would be very little waste of time or money, given the slam-dunk nature of the issue in favor of the President.

As for AG requirements: all laws passed by Congress are subject to Constitutional scrutiny.

This, any and all of these "traditional" requirements you might specify are completely covered under the Senate's confirmation powers.

To be clear, the President has plenary power to nominate his cabinet members. Look up the definition of "plenary". That means that the President could nominate Ted Nugent to be AG if he wanted, and it would be up to the Senate to confirm the rock-n-roller or not.

In the history of this Republic, I'm not aware of any Constitutional limitation on the President's power to nominate the person of his choice for cabinet positions. The President nominates, and the Senate confirms (or not). It's that simple.

47 posted on 12/02/2016 3:49:54 PM PST by sargon (The Revolution is ON! Support President-elect Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: drewh
In the Senate, 47 Democrats will vote against a waiver (I'm still not at all clear under what theory Congress can "waive" a law).

On the other side of the aisle, you have Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake and G-d knows how many other traitors.

This is by no means a done deal.

48 posted on 12/02/2016 3:54:22 PM PST by Jim Noble (Die Gedanken sind Frei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

She is more popular in NY than Mrs. Bill, her predecessor.


49 posted on 12/02/2016 3:55:24 PM PST by Theodore R. (Let's not squander the golden opportunity of 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

“American Democracy”? “...and to the Republic, for which it stands”. A4S4 “...shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion...”

Course, this (D)imwit, hell, MOST of Congress, wouldn’t cite the Constitution unless it covered their ass in one of any of their nefarious activities.


50 posted on 12/02/2016 3:59:47 PM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh
feh...
51 posted on 12/02/2016 4:02:03 PM PST by Chode (You Owe Them Nothing - Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience, NOTHING! ich bin ein Deplorable...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Oh geez, a Democrat disagrees?


52 posted on 12/02/2016 4:07:36 PM PST by ThePatriotsFlag ( Anything FREELY-GIVEN by the government was TAKEN from someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Congress cannot pass a law that limits presidential constitutional power. Period.


53 posted on 12/02/2016 4:23:14 PM PST by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: drewh

RATS hate the US military.


54 posted on 12/02/2016 4:47:59 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
We have the votes.
The problem is the veto. It doesn’t apply to confirming the nomination - but it could be an issue if enabling legislation is required before the confirmation vote can take place.

55 posted on 12/02/2016 4:58:44 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Smuckey schumers stooge


56 posted on 12/02/2016 5:22:03 PM PST by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timmy
Congress cannot pass a law that limits presidential constitutional power. Period.

Which, I assume, was also your stated position throughout the Obama administration.

57 posted on 12/02/2016 5:39:58 PM PST by okie01 ( The MainStream Media: IGNORANfCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Well, cast your one vote Kirsten. Good luck with your fundraising press release.


58 posted on 12/02/2016 5:49:25 PM PST by monkeybrau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Not sure what you are implying. I have always supported the constitution.


59 posted on 12/02/2016 5:53:18 PM PST by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: lodi90
Supposedly Mattis needs 60 votes for a Senate waiver due to his not being out of the service for 7 years. He’ll get it. Just a lot of posturing now.

I agree. The waiver is a separate issue from confirmation. The latter now only needs a majority, but a waiver will require a change in the existing law, and that change could theoretically be filibustered.

But Democrats are not going to go to the mats with a filibuster over the waiver. They will save the filibuster for more important matters, or risk the Republicans nuking the legislative filibuster as well.

Furthermore, Mattis is enormously popular, especially with enlisted military forces and veterans. There's about a dozen Senate Democrats who are facing very tough races in 2018. Think they are going to oppose Mattis and thereby guarantee their defeats? Think they can withstand the enormous public pressure that voters in their home states will apply? I don't. The waiver will pass easily.

60 posted on 12/02/2016 6:38:05 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson