Obama signs bill exempting presidential appointees from Senate confirmation

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

[afraidfortherepublic]

President Barack Obama signed a bill Friday evening that would exempt some senior-level presidential appointees from Senate confirmation.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats, the bill, now law, weakens the power of the legislature and strengthens the executive branch, critics have warned. The bill skated through the Senate three months after being introduced in 2011 and was passed by the Republican-controlled House 216-116 in July.

The law now allows Obama and future presidents to name appointees to senior positions in every branch of the administration, from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security.

Conservative critics worried that the bill restricts congressional authority to monitor executive branch decisions, but the measure received bipartisan support because of the gridlocked, slow-moving Senate, which is known for being the more deliberative of the two bodies of Congress.

Whereas the House is a more populist body, the Senate grants more power to its fewer members. It only takes one senator to filibuster an appointee, forcing the majority party to find a “super majority” of 60 votes to end the filibuster and move ahead with an up-or-down vote.

The law now sidesteps that process, with Congress willingly giving up oversight of these appointees.

“The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process,” wrote Thomas McClusky, senior vice president for the Family Research Council’s legislative arm, in a memo to lawmakers last week.

The positions exempted from Senate confirmation include high-level posts like the treasurer of the United States and chief scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and mid-level posts like the assistant secretary for management at the Department of Education.

The bill also seeks to streamline the paperwork involved in a presidential nomination.

[CottShop]

[[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]]

as I see it (and i’m not saying I’m right as I don’t know for sure) congress woukld have had to either ammend or append the constitution in order for a declaration that all future presidents have the right to appoint without confirmation- The cofnirmation process it seems is a ‘safeguard’ against a presiodent who might try to become dictator- it’s aN effort to try to prevent regimes such as Assad’s regime where he simply appoints whomever he wishes whenever he wishes- it seems that our system was created to help try to balance power- to avoid giving all power to just one individual

[[Congress deemed these posts to be minor enough as to not warrant confirmation hearings.]]

That’s possible, but I’ve not read or heard where congress granted the dear leader this privilege, and if not, then his actions are essentially him spitting i nthe eye of thsoe who wrote our constitution and those who serve udner him and thus wiould be unconstitutional- but if this is infact what happened, and he acted unconstitutionally, the GOP has been silent on the issue simply allowing dear leader to do as he wishes-

[[Since no Congress can bind a future Congress, a future Congress can pass another bill retaking these nominations back for confirmation]]

I agree that that should and most liekly is the case