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.
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?