Posted on 11/19/2024 3:18:00 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s rapid move to stock his administration with loyalists, some viewed with skepticism even by members of his own party, is testing both his grip on Senate Republicans and the boundaries of executive power.
Mr. Trump has made it clear that he wants the option of going around the Senate to install cabinet and other appointees without the chamber’s approval. He could do so with what is known as a “recess appointment,” which allows a president to act on his own when the Senate is not in session.
But it is not clear whether Republican senators would go along with that plan by going out of session at Mr. Trump’s request. Some of them have raised particular alarm at the selection of former Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, the ethics-challenged, hard-right firebrand who has a habit of insulting fellow Republican lawmakers, for attorney general.
Mr. Trump could try to force the issue, invoking an untested clause of the Constitution that could be challenged and even end up before the Supreme Court.
Here’s how it works.
Recess appointments were meant to be a logistical fail-safe.
Article II of the Constitution says that the president can name officials “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” That has been interpreted for centuries to mean that the chamber is responsible for vetting and ultimately confirming the president’s nominees.
But when the Constitution was written in the country’s early days, travel was by horse, and the Senate often was out of session for weeks or months at a time. If a critical vacancy arose, senators could not necessarily convene quickly to confirm a replacement. So the founders included an exception that allowed the president to fill vacancies that...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If they don't want to be primaried they will.
The Senate goes on recess every other week.
Who’re they kidding?
TLDR: YES
Senators who would vote no on a candidate aren't going to vote to go on recess just to enable the bypassing of their own vote.
Article II § 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America".
The fight against the unitary executive which began on a street in Dallas 61 years ago this Friday is culminating right now in front of our eyes.
What a time to be alive!
What about the vacancies act? Even though the appointment is shorter, the idea at AG is to get the investigations going, release documents pertaining to DOJ malfeasance, terminating corrupt employees. The idea is to go on office sooner.
After the heavy lifting is done with aggressive loyal cabinet appointees, longer term picks will have an easier time.
Trump might use tactic from baseball and platoon batters and put pitchers in for a few innings.
Even George Washington made a recess appointment....and Reagan...and Clinton....and Obama....
The republican party needs this more than Trump. The GOP already has a big problems with their own voters. They need to prove that they can actually function as a legitimate political party and generate majorities and get results.
Trump will get control of The DOJ and FBI one way or the other. He will be The President after all.
Part of me hopes that they do try to play games and be obstructionists. The GOP will only destroy themselves and they will not be missed!
Question how have other admin stations done it, with a new administration all or nearly all would need to be filled, if that is slow rolled does that mean for instance no secdef for say 2 years?
I always thought that they would fill them temporarily till confirmed and besides the whole advise and consent thing is bs
What do you mean by "this"? Gaetz as Attorney General? Because no, the GOP does not need Gaetz as AG - at all. And neither does Trump even if that is what he believes. He and the GOP both would be far better off with someone else.
Gaetz is great at making a lot of noise but accomplishing nothing. And putting him in charge of a massive organization about which he knows nothing is guaranteed to produce the same non-results.
“This” - FAFO GOP.
Sorry, not following what you’re trying to say.
You’re wrong.
When convenient to their characterization, the US Constitution's "advice and consent" gets turned into "confirmation and approval," as if it were a twist of the knife. These are not "the same thing." Neither do the latter flow from the former.
But this is signature Speaker Pelosi-style, Marxist (word-twisting and redefining) opportunism. For Pelosi and the dems, for example, the minority party is told they'll just have to pass whatever bill she puts forward for a vote with no chance for anyone to seriously review it before it would be forwarded to the President and become law. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it!" Obviously, The Founding Fathers never intended such a travesty, yet so had a Democrat Speaker's power "evolved" over the House--contrary to constitutional norms.
Despite Founding Fathers' intentions, the Dems relish it, "because she gets things done!" Total Bullsh*t.
Barry used Corney's illegally obtained and passed around memos to influence the staff of VP Pence, who's been in-thick buds with the Nazi GHWBush clan, to convince their boss to corruptly induce PDJT to be rid of his stellar new National Security Advisor, LTG Mike Flynn. Prior to this event, it was unheard of that an outgoing Administration would spy on and plot against its successor. And yet the Dems stoked its beholden media to parlay off that inculcated tradition to portray any claims of its spying simply another brazen Conspiracy Theory from extreme right-wingers and their new MAGA president. Despite its contradictions with the US Constitution, the US populace had yet to realize how severe was the impact of the Barry-signed Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 toward allowing false government propaganda to become. It had changed how the Deep State considered itself openly licensed to source previously illegal narratives. They believed with a stroke of the pen that hoaxes had become de rigeur legalized weapons.
Strzok's Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which had not found probable cause was nonetheless handed over to Robert Mueller by Rod Rosenstein for a Special Counsel investigation. To initiate such an Special Counsel requires that there first have been a finding of probable cause. The truth that there had been no such finding as a result of Crossfire Hurricane had been hidden by Rosenstein in the severely redacted Scope of Investigation and only became clear as Mueller presented his findings to Congress some two and a half years and $35M later. Despite Steele's lying Dossier, there was NEITHER EVIDENCE of PDJT collusion with the Russians and there HAD NEVER BEEN probable cause to believe such was so.
Craven Pelosi Marxism came through in 2017 with the House Dem majority to be able to end-around the Constitution by fostering an ultimately-disproven, false accusation from an unknown so-called whistleblower to turn into letting an unknown accuser lie about the contents of a PDJT-Zelenskyy phone call. PDJT quickly showed the accuser to be a liar with the true transcript, but Pelosi and crew were not about the truth, they were out to destroy PDJT, as blood sport, just as was the goal for LTG Flynn, as one can see through Judge Emmet Sullivan's handling of the case.
Pelosi had bastardized her control of a majority of House votes into a weapon to instigate and "grease the skids" for impeachment in search of the first plausible "high crime or misdemeanor" she could "trump" up. That's what Pelosi has forged her impeachment monstrosity to be.
Similarly, the Senate is to advise, then consent to the Executive Branch's nominations. It was never intended to derive from a concept of "oversight" that Congress constitutionally holds over federal agencies, for example. The intent was NOT that nominees be beholden to a campaign-style run for majority of Senate votes, as if "Senate confirmation" was a required further stamp of approval. It's not. If one or more Senators know of an advisable grievance against a nominee, that advice is to be given and a consensus about the gravity of such a grievance should be the weight of reason to withdraw a nominee, was might be appropriate, not Pelosi-style gamesmanship around finding a quota of nakedly partisan, whipped-up votes. After the advice is given, the Senate's job is to give its consent.
We have the first paragraph - "advice and consent" and "confirmation and approval" are not "the same thing.
Then we have six paragraphs of "Pelosi is evil."
Then we have the last paragraph that basically restates the first ("After the advice is given, the Senate's job is to give its consent") as if summing up a case that had been thoroughly proved, when in reality no evidence has been offered and no explanations given.
Maybe the author has a point, but he sure didn't make it.
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.