One of the most basic and brilliant facets of the founding document bequeathed to us by men wise beyond their years is a system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one of the three branches of government from acquiring too much power.
We’re familiar with many of these. Vetoes and their override is a well known example. Another is Presidential appointments wherein the President appoints a person to a position but the Senate must confirm the appointment.
While the Senate’s ability to deny a President his choice is a power that often frustrates those in the Oval Office, and while it is often abused – particularly, but not exclusively, by Democrats – it remains a powerful check on Presidential power.
That is until Friday, August 3, 2012 when the US House in a “roll call” vote chose to reduce the number of Presidential appointments subject to Senate confirmation. The vote was the House vote on S679 from 2011 where the US Senate voted 79-20 to do the same thing.
The original Senate bill was introduced by NY’s Chuck Schumer and TN’s Lamar Alexander was a co-sponsor. TN Senator Bob Corker, while not a co-sponsor, was one of the disappointing 79 “Yea” votes last year. Other GOP Senators of note supporting the bill were Scott Brown, Dick Lugar, John McCain, Rob Portman, Jeff Sessions, John Thune and Pat Toomey. No Senate Democrat opposed the bill and among GOP Senators opposing the bill were Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Dean Heller, James Inhofe, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.
The Tennessee House delegation was much better. Only Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper and Stephen Fincher voted for the bill. Marsha Blackburn, Diane Black, Jimmy Duncan, Chuck Fleischman and Phil Roe all opposed the measure while Scott DesJarlais did not cast a vote.
Among the 95 House Republicans supporting the bill were Eric Cantor, Jason Chaffetz, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Duncan Hunter, Darryl Issa, Adam Kinzinger and Paul Ryan. Only one Democrat voted against the bill joining 115 GOP House members including Justin Amash, Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert and Allen West.
The final vote total was 261-116 with 54 present and not voting. Four members, including John Boehner, were evidently not present and did not vote. If 43 GOP yes votes had gone the other way, the measure would have failed.
The bill’s purpose is explained as a streamlining measure. Most of the positions now exempt from confirmation are not overly visible or important ones. Still, New American reports,
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 …
You can see the whole list of positions here.
There are several troubling questions and aspects in the bill. Why would any legislator, regardless of party, freely surrender authority and responsibility given to him by our Constitution? If there are backlogs and departments without leaders, why was this solution adopted? For example, why not fold leaderless departments into other departments? Why not do away with them altogether? How many Assistant Secretaries does our government actually need, after all?
Most importantly, this is a legislative end around to subvert a Constitutional requirement. The “Appointments Clause” in Article II, Section 2 is the basis for the Senate confirmation process. There is no excuse for this “problem” to be solved in this way. If the issue is that portions of government have grown too big to be handled in the Constitutional manner, then arguably the solution is to cut the size of government, not reduce the authority of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, virtually every Democrat at the national level, and far too many Republicans, disagree.
It gives one pause. These legislators, especially Republicans, are the ones we are counting on to do things like repeal ObamaCare, keep our nation safe and secure our rights. If they so cavalierly discard Constitutional requirements and surrender Constitutionally bestowed responsibilities in minor areas, are we really sure they are the right folks for the big jobs?
#1 by Eric Holcombe on 08/08/2012 - 22:53
“…are we really sure they are the right folks for the big jobs?”
I thought you just finished a multi-post series explaining why we should re-elect Bob…
The treasury appointment approval of tax cheat Geithner and Bernanke as Fed chairman and subsequent lobbying to not audit the federal reserve system by both our Senators is one(three?) of my major beefs with them. Corker’s email reply on the Geithner confirmation exemplified your frustration, that it is accepted practice/traditional/whatever to not interfere with the President’s pick so buzz off. In the case of the federal reserve, they found actually auditing the path of the 13 trillion in vaporizing freshly printed from thin air cash to be “interfering with monetary policy”. Gee guys, ever read the Constitution? It’s Congress’ job for crying out loud!
But seeing as we are also agreeable to remain in a perpetual state of war emergency powers since 2001, they have already ceded the sole king-like authority to the executive branch. Look at the ridiculous executive orders with no checks and balances. They’d rather do exactly as you have implied…do nothing and say “I’m not the president, it wasn’t my fault”.
#2 by Blue Collar Muse on 08/09/2012 - 07:55
I wondered how long it would take for someone to take the bait and remind and scold me for my support of Corker. Congratulations! It was relatively immediate.
You both misunderstand and misinterpret my recent posts vis-a-vis Bob Corker. My endorsement post clearly allowed that there were votes of his of which I did not approve. It allowed that I believe that overall his performance has been good and there was no reason to unseat him. I never said that he voted well 100% of the time.
The rest of the posts are also correct in that they specifically addressed incorrect information being disseminated by those who reflexively dislike the Senator and so pass on bad information because it fits their agenda as opposed to because it is true.
Nowhere in any post did I suggest the Senator was infallible. What I suggested is precisely what so many will not do: support the Senator where he is right and point out when, where and why he is wrong when he is.
It is difficult to miss the irony that our discussion here in comments is a result of my behaving in accordance with my values. The Senator is wrong and I – as one of his supporters – am the one who said so.
I’ll be so much more open to hearing what his detractors have to say about him once I regularly see even a single one of them actually praise the Senator for his many good votes.
Just so you know, I’m not holding my breath …
#3 by Eric Holcombe on 08/09/2012 - 12:05
“I never said that he voted well 100% of the time.”
I never claimed you did.
“Nowhere in any post did I suggest the Senator was infallible.”
I never claimed you did.
You did post that Tennesseans should re-elect Bob to the Senate. I objected to that premise based on his actions, some of which was censored, some of which in this post you and I now seem to agree upon – at least in principle. I’m just curious as to why you didn’t see it before. Abdication of Congress’ responsibility in these appointments and monetary matters has been on display for some time. Just think back to all the ‘czars’ for example. I mean, let’s just say the constitutionality of this was not a problem. Let’s just say you aren’t sharp enough to consider the long term consequences of handing over this power to one man, some one to be elected far in the future (which is what the constitution is there to help you with). Is this the president you want to give more latitude in regard to appointments?
I don’t think these guys (Corker and Alexander) are this stupid. Lamar did introduce the bill as a co-sponsor after all.
#4 by Gary LaRoy on 11/07/2012 - 16:21
I believe it is time for sweeping change in the US House and Senate … beginning at the top. I believe John Boehner and Harry Reid should both step down and make the way for younger, less-political minds to take over the reigns of government in the House and Senate.
Harry Reid disqualified himself when he announced his intention to muzzle the GOP with new filibuster rules. This move demonstrates that he did not learn anything from the election. He is the same Harry Reid that has not passed a budget.
John Boehner took a victory lap last night, without recognizing he only represents one-third of the federal government. He should have kept his mouth shut and his phone line open to meet with the president and to demonstrate a desire to listen and look for new ways to maintain conservative principles, while abandoning his demonstrated entrenchment in failed approaches.