House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments

By a vote of 261-116, the House of Representatives passed a bill rewriting Article II of the Constitution and divesting the Senate of the power to accept or reject the appointment of many presidential nominees.

Last year, the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 79-20, so it now goes to the desk of President Obama for his signature.

"Important positions will be filled faster, government agencies will be more capable of offering valuable services to their constituents, and the overall confirmation process will be more efficient,” said Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Dozens of key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) will now be filled by presidential edict, without the need of the “advice and consent” of the Senate, a phrase specifically removed from the process in the text of the bill.

Although the House vote occurred on Tuesday, the Senate voted to surrender its constitutional check on the executive over a year ago on June 29, 2011.

Despite a last-minute attempt by some House leaders to put the measure to a voice vote, thus allowing members to vote in favor of the legislation without being listed on the record, a roll call vote was taken, and the name of every congressman who voted to unconstitutionally neuter the legislative branch is listed.

The process began last March when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and 15 cosponsors, including Republicans Lamar Alexander (Tenn.); Scott Brown (Mass.); and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), introduced S. 679, the “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.” The measure struck from many current laws the “advice and consent” requirement for many executive branch appointments, giving the president unchecked power to fill key administration positions.

In a memo sent to Capitol Hill in advance of Tuesday’s vote in the House, Thomas McClusky of the Family Research Council reminded lawmakers, “The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process.”

Although McClusky’s reading of the Constitution is accurate, as of Tuesday it is no longer the law of the land. According to proponents of the measure, the bill benefitted from such strong bipartisan support (95 Republicans joined 166 Democrats voting in favor of passage) because its sole purpose is to relieve the backlog of unconfirmed appointees by eliminating the confirmation requirement for about 200 offices.

The process by which heads of executive branch departments are appointed and confirmed is set forth by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The “Appointments Clause” provides that the president:


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/12302-house-passes-bill-eliminating-senate-approval-of-pres-appointments


This will end in a dictatorship.

8/3/2012 4:31:44 PM

It is very clear that you have a thorough understanding of the constitutional amendment process.

8/3/2012 5:51:29 PM

Quote :

"Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations. According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html




Apparently I'm not the only one that doesn't understand the Constitution.

8/3/2012 6:42:03 PM

I would far rather Congress rewrite the Constitution than circumvent it via tortured logic or even flatly ignore it.

8/3/2012 7:56:05 PM

I don't want any of the above unless there is a threat to my liberty or someone else's life,liberty, and property.

8/3/2012 8:07:42 PM

well, if they don't make appropriate changes to it, that just leads to circumventing/ignoring it, as we have seen

8/3/2012 10:11:21 PM

I don't follow- circumventing/ignoring what?

8/3/2012 10:55:02 PM

This isn't a constitutional amendment, unless I'm really missing something.

The Constitution allows Congress to designate which "inferior officers" and other Executive officers not listed in the Constitution do not need to have advice and consent from the Senate.

Congress is making the list of what goes by without the Senate's approval much longer, now including even most Cabinet positions.

It appears that only the departments the founders knew about (State, Justice, etc.) will still be confirmed. Heads of Homeland Security, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, Ag, etc. will not be confirmed.

It's openly contrary to any conceivable intent of the framers that most Cabinet positions would be filled without Senate confirmation.

But, that's the benefit we reap from not amending the Constitution to create these new departments in the first place. Because they aren't in there, they don't have to be confirmed.

[Edited on August 4, 2012 at 2:59 AM. Reason : s]

8/4/2012 2:54:37 AM

Quote :

"divesting the Senate of the power to accept"

Quote :

"the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 79-20"

8/4/2012 11:34:47 AM

The congress doesn't always do things in the best interest of the people or themselves.


For examples: The Federal Reserve, Limiting the number of house representatives (the half of the congress that represents the US by population), Income Tax...

[Edited on August 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2012 11:43:55 AM

yea just what we need, a stronger executive.

8/4/2012 8:47:42 PM