Do We NEED Contitutional Amendment Requiring Presidential Appointees be voted on by full Senate?

14Feb02 | xzins

[xzins]

How would you write/would you support a new amendment to require appointments by President's receive up/down votes in the full Senate? This is the current intent of the constitution but it is negated by the rules the Senate has imposed for committees, and the powers the Senate has given committee chairpersons.

The constitution gives the president the power to nominate to the judiciary and other executive offices.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and consent.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to make their own rules.

One rule made by the Senate is that committees such as the Judiciary Committee can keep appointees from being voted on by the full Senate. This seems a clear contradiction of the constitution itself, which says THE SENATE shall be the deciding body; not any committee.

It seems that the power to make rules should not allow rules to be made that violate other processes delineated by the Constitution!

[McGavin999]

I don't know, but that's an excellent idea. Maybe we could get a grassroots movement started. Our senate is out of control and it's time it was brought back into line with what the Constitution requires.

Personally, I'm sick of the egos on both sides interferring with the best interest of the country.

[xzins]

What does it take to amend the constitution....3/4 of the states...or is it 2/3? The movement to amend can also come from the states, correct?

[aardvark1]

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

[The Mayor]

what we need to do is get rid of these power hungry demo rats

[Non-Sequitur]

The Constitutional amendment to limit the power of the Senate would have to be approved by...the Senate. Unless you think that you can get 2/3rds of the state legislatures to approve a call for a Constitutional convention. How likely do you think it is that either will happen?

[Whilom]

No. What goes around comes around. We may desperately need that rule to keep Clinton from becoming Secretary of State someday.

[xzins]

Be carefull...I agree. An amendment is a serious subject.

Also, it would cut both ways depending on the party of any future Presidents/Senates. However, I BELIEVE in the Constitution itself, not in the people filling any office.

These politicians are jamming up the intent of the Constitution. I will stand up for the intent.

[billbears]

Sure. That's just what we need. Another Constitutional amendment. Like we don't have enough silly additions to the document changing the intent of it already

Sorry, but the door swings both ways. The President has too much power as it is. The Senate should be a power that can stop what a President wants. Just because it's not in the hands of the 'conservative' party at the moment doesn't mean we should rally for rule changes to get our way. Of course the public voting on Senators helped put us in the mess we're in now anyway.

OVERTURN THE 17th AMENDMENT and then you would be on the right road to a more Constitutional government

[realpatriot71]

The states can call for a constitutional convention, but I'm not entirely clear as to how or when that works. I'm sure somebody here will know off the tops of their heads.

[BibleBaseballBarbecue]

Exactly.

[xzins]

I'm more concerned with the intent of the constitution being carried out than I am with who might or might not be a nominee some day.

And if some nominee is approved by the Senate, then so be it.

BTW, I also think the filibuster rule frustrates the intent of the constitution for proposals to receive honest up/down votes.

[xzins]

I agree with you about the 17th amendment, but I don't think it will be overturned.

Nonetheless, the Constitution does say that THE SENATE will make the decision regarding appointees. The rules rule and the powers provisions are in conflict.

Something must happen to force the intent of the constitution to be carried out.

Perhaps the AG can ask the Supreme Court to rule on the manner in which the senate is frustrating the intent of the constitution.

It seems to me, though, that an amendment would also answer the question.

[Whilom]

You're right as far as you go. But the chance of Congress carrying out the "intent of the Constitutiton" is about as likely as the chance that the Bush administration will "reform" INS. Possible, but don't hold your breath.

[billbears]

And it might seem that way, but it would be another example of the POTUS taking power out of the hand of the Senate. What some consider the 'greatest' Presidents in our history did more damage to the Constitution by taking the power away from the legislative branch and onto themselves. While I might not agree with what the Senate is doing at the moment, to put one more iota of power into the hands of the President would be a travesty to the Constitution that would have far reaching consequences

[Boonie Rat]

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment for anything. What we need to do is follow the Constitution,that will resolve the problems we have.

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[otterpond]

You should not want to change the Constitution just because some folks in S. Dakota elect a jerk to serve in the Senate. Let's quit changing the letter and spirit of the law and just try enforcing both.....

[xzins]

I don't think it's granting more power to a president to expect the intent of the constitution to be carried out. The intent is that the full senate vote on appointees.

Perhaps since this is an area of conflict, it can be taken to the Supreme Court for decision on which trumps which, the Senate power to set their own rules, or the Constitutional provision about Executive/Legislative overlap/coordination: that the senate vote on presidential nominees.

[xzins]

One can only hope.....naw, I don't believe that. Sometimes, one can do something.

[xzins]

I'm not sure this is a change as much as it is a clarification. An amendment would surely clarify. Is it possible for Ashcroft to take this conflict of powers to the Supreme Court for decision?