Posted on 11/14/2018 7:34:51 AM PST by CaptainK
They didn't make the law.
” I don’t think Whitaker’s appointment is constitutional, ...”
So all previous temporary appointments were unconstitutional by your authoritative knowledge?
Are you going to suggest that the Senate is not required to vote on presidential nominees to judicial posts, ambassadorships and cabinet posts? Can you cite any evidence for that?
.......
Please cite where in the constitution it requires a vote.
No. I'm saying all previous temporary appointments to positions that require Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution were. There aren't that many posts that even fit this description in the first place. There are at least 1,200 posts in the Executive and Judicial Branches that require Senate confirmation. Most of these require Senate confirmation under the terms of the statute that established them. Other than judges, I'm sure there are fewer than 40 that require confirmation under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (regardless of what a statute may or may not require).
As opposed to what — a letter signed by a majority of the U.S. Senators? That would constitute a “vote,” in my opinion.
As opposed to whatever the Senate chooses.
Nowhere in the constitution does it require approval by a majority of senators.
In fact, for decades a majority vote was never held on nominees.
Where do you see that they made law?
Too late. The incoming Dem Committee chairs will bury them and call them lies if they come out and the media will refuse to print them. The moment for them to make a difference has passed.
So, according to your authoritative knowledge there can be NO temporary appointments and all the tens (or more) previous such appointments were unconstitutional?
Who then fills these positions in the interim?
More importantly, they will likely become key pieces of information in various legal proceedings -- both criminal and civil -- in the coming 1-2 years. For example: You don't think someone like Michael Flynn will use this information to go after the FBI/CIA for illegally wiretapping him?
OK — great. I’m not sure what your point is.
Please read all my posts on this thread. Your question came up already and has been addressed.
“OK — great. I’m not sure what your point is.”
The point is .... there is no requirement in the constitution for a senate majority approval of nominees.
The Congress has determined that acting appointments to fill vacancies for a limited term do not require such confirmation. It is really very clear.
There aren't that many positions that even qualify as "principal officers" to begin with. Start with the cabinet positions, for example.
The only ones I am aware of in recent years were all subject to legal challenges. They include the National Labor Relations Board appointment that precipitated the case that ended in the 2017 Supreme Court decision, plus Trump's appointment of Mick Mulvaney to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That legal challenge ended when it became irrelevant after Trump appointed a permanent successor to the prior CFPB head.
Does an incoming president have the Constitutional right to appoint a cabinet prior to its confirmation being addressed by the new Senate? Y or N
Not exactly. It gives Congress the discretion to let the President appoint "inferior officers," but you've left out the "other public Ministers and Consuls" part of the Appointments Clause. Those are generally accepted to mean cabinet members -- corresponding to the "Ministries" used in Parliamentary system like the one England uses.
The President can "appoint" anyone he wants -- even before he's in office. An appointment doesn't carry any legal weight at all, and a person who is appointed in that case has no authority to do anything. The key point in the process is when this appointment becomes a formal nomination that is given to the U.S. Senate. Presidents routinely appoint people or announce appointments long before a formal nomination is given to the Senate.
Look at Jeff Sessions, for example. President-Elect Trump announced that Sessions would be his Attorney General on November 18th of 2016. That didn't mean Sessions was now the Attorney General. He wasn't confirmed until February 9th of 2017. The Senate didn't even open the floor debate for his nomination until February 1st, I think.
“President Trump chose to override the DOJ succession rules. That’s his right as the President of the United States.”
Well, at least you got that right.
“That doesn’t mean he can appoint ANYONE to a role that requires Senate confirmation, though.”
Were did you get THAT from ?
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.