Posted on 06/22/2005 2:51:09 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
The Bolton problem will have to be resolved politically, but it seems clear from this and the dispute over judicial nominees that there is a problem in the confirmation process, and perhaps it's time to start thinking about a long-term constitutional solution. Why not a constitutional amendment that would go something like this:
Section 1. The President's power to fill vacancies during a recess of the Senate shall apply only in the case of a recess lasting ninety days or longer.
Section 2. The Senate shall vote on all presidential appointments within ninety days of the first day the Senate is in session after the President submits an appointment. The Senate's failure to fulfill this obligation shall be construed as consenting to the appointment.
Section 3. The provisions of this Article shall take effect at the beginning of the next Presidential term after the ratification of this Article.
The effect of this would be to render ineffective all of the obstructionist tactics--blue slips, delayed committee hearings, filibusters--that Republicans used to block nominees during the Clinton years and Democrats are using now, while having no effect on the Senate's constitutional prerogative to set its own rules vis-à-vis legislation. Section 3, by deferring the change until the next presidential term, would avoid any consideration of short-term partisan advantage.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
James Madison knew what he was doing.
No, thanks.
Elections mean something. I think all of a President's nominees should get a vote. If the Senate fails to vote, then it should be construed as consenting. 90 days seems about right.
I think the only important part is section 2. Section 1 is not necessary, but given Section 2, we could live with it. But I absolutely wouldn't want section 3. There is no reason not to make section to law, effective immediately.
Why not have a real filabuster? Make them work around the clock. What's wrong with the Republicans?
A filibuster is not a good solution. If you don't have the votes, you lose. You don't get to hold up the work of the nation. If the Senate, as a body, will not provide consent, then a President's nomination should be considered confirmed. It makes good sense.
LOL!
The problem there is that the hard part falls on the Republicans. The 'rats only need one didiot droning on, while the GOP guys have to hang around in case there is a quorum challenge.
Yes he did
And thanks for pointing that out.
I've recently come of the opinion that most of our amendments have done far more harm than good. We would be far better off by rescinding all the amendments. The little good they do -- and it is very little -- is far outweighed by harm they have done.
Instead, get some spine and make confirmations non-filibusterable.
I don't see the "Bolton problem as a problem at all.
Bush should NOT recess appoint Bolton because that would give the rats an "out" and an excuse to dump the disastrous (for them) filibuster "deal". ("President Bush is circumventing the will of the Senate and he has therefore violated the spirit of "the deal". So therefore, as far as us Democrats are concerned, the deal is now OFF! Harumphh!")
Giving the rats an easy way out of the deal is the last thing Bush and the Republicans want. I'm afraid that a recess appointment might be just what the rats are hoping for.
The Senate Republicans need to concentrate on the judges. That's the main thing. They need to get as many judges confirmed as possible, as quickly as possible. This Bolton stuff is just a sideshow, a little raw meat the Republicans throw to the rats every once in awhile so the rats can give their goofball base something to cheer about between waves of judge confirmations.
I figure the Republicans will throw Bolton up there every two weeks or so, just so the rats can scratch their filibuster itch. Then it's right back to the judges, all of whom are now assured confirmation thanks to "the deal".
In the meantime, the House will deal with Bolton and the UN in its own way. "The Democrats don't want Bolton?", House Republican leaders will exclaim. "Then clearly they don't want reform. And since the Democrats don't want UN reform, then it is up to us Republicans in the House to protect the nation's taxpayers by shutting down the pipeline of US taxdollars to the corrupt UN."
The House already voted to halve UN funding, and the rest is on the table, I'm sure. The Bolton filibuster obstructionism by the rats will only make it easier for the House to justify defunding the UN, and at the same time make it easier for the Senate to agree with whatever the House does.
It all works out in the end.
And really - - who gives the slightest rat's behind about the foul, stinking UN anyways?
Er, the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights...freedom of speech, religion, right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. I'd hate to be without the Bill of Rights.
thanks. I tend to separate the Bill of Rights from the amendments. Therefore let me amend the above saying we should rescind all but the first ten, (though little good they have recently done us, since they are virtually ignored).
It might also disabuse us of the abusive interpretations of the poorly written 14th that has been used so often as a pretense to effectively abolish the 9th and 10th amendments.
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.