U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2012, 07:43 AM
 
29,419 posts, read 18,747,301 times
Reputation: 5437

Advertisements

More power to the president. No need for czars anymore it appears. The next congressor who cries about the president having too much power should be kicked out of congress.

"President Barack Obama signed a bill Friday evening that would exempt some senior-level presidential appointees from Senate confirmation. Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats, the bill, now law, weakens the power of the legislature and strengthens the executive branch, critics have warned. 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."


Law exempts presidential appointees from Senate confirmation | The Daily Caller
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2012, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 21,077,980 times
Reputation: 8620
Congress shouldn't reject any presidential appointment, unless they are unqualified. Your disagreement with their position isn't grounds to unqualify them. Harriet Myers was unqualified. John Roberts was.

See the difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: The middle of nowhere Arkansas
3,326 posts, read 2,719,535 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Congress shouldn't reject any presidential appointment, unless they are unqualified. Your disagreement with their position isn't grounds to unqualify them. Harriet Myers was unqualified. John Roberts was.

See the difference?
An all too powerful executive branch isn't in anyone's best interests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,687 posts, read 5,541,077 times
Reputation: 4966
Here's a link to the text of the bill: Text of S.679 as Enrolled Bill: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 01:56 PM
 
29,419 posts, read 18,747,301 times
Reputation: 5437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Congress shouldn't reject any presidential appointment, unless they are unqualified. Your disagreement with their position isn't grounds to unqualify them. Harriet Myers was unqualified. John Roberts was.

See the difference?
Well it appears if they are qualified or not it won't matter anymore. There is a reason advice and consent by congress was set forth in the Constitution. It is so one branch doesn't gain too much power. I guess that Constitution doesn't matter to folks much anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 04:10 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 37,243,326 times
Reputation: 12767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01 View Post
An all too powerful executive branch isn't in anyone's best interests.
No it is not. I was outrage that the Congress voted to allow the Senate to abdicate more of its responsibilities to the Executive Branch.

House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments

Roll Call House: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml

Roll Call Senate: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 04:16 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,119,175 times
Reputation: 14897
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
I guess that Constitution doesn't matter to folks much anymore.
Well it does to those of us who have actually read it.


Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,563,848 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Well it does to those of us who have actually read it.


Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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.
And it took this long but Congress just vested away their ability to approve.
While it's clearly in the constitution it was never acted upon for over 200 years.
So that's one less job Congress has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 21,077,980 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01 View Post
An all too powerful executive branch isn't in anyone's best interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Well it appears if they are qualified or not it won't matter anymore. There is a reason advice and consent by congress was set forth in the Constitution. It is so one branch doesn't gain too much power. I guess that Constitution doesn't matter to folks much anymore.

You're reading way to much into what it says....

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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.

No where in there does it say that congress has the right to tell the President anything, it says advice and consent. Because a supreme court justices isn't pro life, for instance, is not a reason to not accept their nomination, if they are qualified for the job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2012, 04:39 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,749 posts, read 10,645,247 times
Reputation: 19946
Fools. Anything that diminishes checks & balances is not a good thing for the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:27 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top