Obama Signs Bill Which Exempts Presidential Appointees From Congressional Confirmation

[sailingaway]

The bill skated through the Senate three months after being introduced in 2011 and was passed by the Republican-controlled House 216-116 in July.

The law now allows Obama and future presidents to name appointees to senior positions in every branch of the administration, from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security.

Conservative critics worried that the bill restricts congressional authority to monitor executive branch decisions, but the measure received bipartisan support because of the gridlocked, slow-moving Senate, which is known for being the more deliberative of the two bodies of Congress.

Whereas the House is a more populist body, the Senate grants more power to its fewer members. It only takes one senator to filibuster an appointee, forcing the majority party to find a “super majority” of 60 votes to end the filibuster and move ahead with an up-or-down vote.

The law now sidesteps that process, with Congress willingly giving up oversight of these appointees.



Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/08/11/obama-signs-bill-which-exempts-presidential-appointees-congressional-confirmation#ixzz2RVagTshY

...

[sailingaway]

I think delegation where the Constitution demands oversight and separation of powers is unConstitutional, see the line item veto.

[paulbot24]

If only we could go back to the House reps voting on our Senators again.....

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FW6pNMrbahM/T8gG1JdMbeI/AAAAAAAAAfE/7pcqC-wX_hQ/s1600/dictator-obama.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

The clause in the Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[lib3rtarian]

So Obama managed to get rid of one more "pesky" constitutional road block? :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

The clause in the Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause



The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner

[sailingaway]

The clause in the Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

But you see the 'inferior' officers, not 'senior officers' part of that? The constitution NEVER GAVE THE RIGHT FOR THESE DEPARTMENTS to the federal govt at all, the officers aren't less 'senior', they aren't supposed to exist.

[ClydeCoulter]

But you see the 'inferior' officers, not 'senior officers' part of that? The constitution NEVER GAVE THE RIGHT FOR THESE DEPARTMENTS to the federal govt at all, the officers aren't less 'senior', they aren't supposed to exist.

^^ THIS ^^

[Zippyjuan]

The Fox piece doesn't say- what "senior positions" does it cover? Who is an "officer" covered by the Constitution? Is that the Secretary of a given department or does it extend down to others? (article is actually from August 2012)

Prior to the bill there were some 1,400 positions which required consent. The bill exempted 163 of them. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf


Prior to the adoption of
the measures discussed in this report, there were approximately 1,200-1,400 positions in the
executive branch requiring the Senate’s advice and consent.

At the end of his first term, in part due to the confirmation process, Obama still had 13% of posts unfilled.


P.L. 112-166, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, removed the
requirement for Senate confirmation for appointees to 163 positions, authorizing the President
alone to appoint certain officials.


The law’s supporters have said that the positions listed in the law were not significant enough to
necessitate Senate consideration, which is why they were chosen to be included. Many of the
positions were assistant secretaries for administration or public affairs and other lower-level
policy positions within agencies.

For a more detailed list, see Apendix A on page 19 of the link.

Examples:


Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of
Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service Administrator, Department of Agriculture
Directors (7), Commodity Credit Corporation


Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, Department of
Transportation

[Shane Harris]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."

[sailingaway]

The Fox piece doesn't say- what "senior positions" does it cover? Who is an "officer" covered by the Constitution? Is that the Secretary of a given department or does it extend down to others? (article is actually from August 2012)

Prior to the bill there were some 1,400 positions which required consent. The bill exempted 163 of them. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf


At the end of his first term, in part due to the confirmation process, Obama still had 13% of posts unfilled.





For a more detailed list, see Apendix A on page 19 of the link.

Examples:


So what? If his people suck, they won't be affirmed. That is why the Senate is supposed to confirm, to make sure they don't suck. Separation of powers exists PRECISELY to say NO and have it stick.

[Zippyjuan]

So what? If his people suck, they won't be affirmed. That is why the Senate is supposed to confirm, to make sure they don't suck. Separation of powers exists PRECISELY to say NO and have it stick.

Republicans weren't simply rejecting people- they would not even allow any hearings on the appointements to take place so the qualifications of the indivuduals could be examined for policical power games.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Sort of related, for those that are confirmed, the positions being filled are rather long term and staggered. For example, the head of the Federal Reserve serves for 14 years. It's done this way so that no single president or congress can make huge changes.

-t

[gwax23]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Lysander Spooner

This 1000 times this.