|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 17:53:55 GMT
There is a provision whereby Donald can make appointments without Senate consent.
It would require a manufactured disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournment. The disagreement would not actually exist, it would purely be used to get around Senate consent. Its normal function would be to keep the government functioning in times of legitimate disagreement.
My question to you righties is if you would be ok with this misuse of a provision so that Donald can appoint whomever he chooses, thus putting yet more power in the executive.
I'm not. Senate approval is to insure the quality and appropriateness of appointees, instead of purely having them chosen based on loyalty alone.
Freon
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 21, 2024 18:00:30 GMT
There is a provision whereby Donald can make appointments without Senate consent. It would require a manufactured disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournment. The disagreement would not actually exist, it would purely be used to get around Senate consent. Its normal function would be to keep the government functioning in times of legitimate disagreement. My question to you righties is if you would be ok with this misuse of a provision so that Donald can appoint whomever he chooses, thus putting yet more power in the executive. I'm not. Senate approval is to insure the quality and appropriateness of appointees, instead of purely having them chosen based on loyalty alone. Freon Article II, section 2, clause 3. Suggest you read it. Or read up on national labor relations board v. Noel canning. Basic constitutional law. But the last time a new president had someone not confirmed by the senate happened about 35 years ago. So if the dems deny it as they did 35 years ago that’d be very rare |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 18:26:02 GMT
There is a provision whereby Donald can make appointments without Senate consent. It would require a manufactured disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournment. The disagreement would not actually exist, it would purely be used to get around Senate consent. Its normal function would be to keep the government functioning in times of legitimate disagreement. My question to you righties is if you would be ok with this misuse of a provision so that Donald can appoint whomever he chooses, thus putting yet more power in the executive. I'm not. Senate approval is to insure the quality and appropriateness of appointees, instead of purely having them chosen based on loyalty alone. Freon Article II, section 2, clause 3. Suggest you read it. Or read up on national labor relations board v. Noel canning. Basic constitutional law. But the last time a new president had someone not confirmed by the senate happened about 35 years ago. So if the dems deny it as they did 35 years ago that’d be very rare You are not answering the question, or maybe indirectly you are. It sounds like you believe in following Article II, which means you would NOT want Donald to go around it. Is this accurate? Freon |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 21, 2024 18:47:27 GMT
There is a provision whereby Donald can make appointments without Senate consent. It would require a manufactured disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournment. The disagreement would not actually exist, it would purely be used to get around Senate consent. Its normal function would be to keep the government functioning in times of legitimate disagreement. My question to you righties is if you would be ok with this misuse of a provision so that Donald can appoint whomever he chooses, thus putting yet more power in the executive. I'm not. Senate approval is to insure the quality and appropriateness of appointees, instead of purely having them chosen based on loyalty alone. Freon
Based on what has happened with Gaetz, not sure you can expect that (see here and here, for example)
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 19:18:53 GMT
There is a provision whereby Donald can make appointments without Senate consent. It would require a manufactured disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournment. The disagreement would not actually exist, it would purely be used to get around Senate consent. Its normal function would be to keep the government functioning in times of legitimate disagreement. My question to you righties is if you would be ok with this misuse of a provision so that Donald can appoint whomever he chooses, thus putting yet more power in the executive. I'm not. Senate approval is to insure the quality and appropriateness of appointees, instead of purely having them chosen based on loyalty alone. Freon
Based on what has happened with Gaetz, not sure you can expect that (see here and here, for example)
This thread is not trying to predict the future, it is asking if the CONCEPT of getting around the appointment process is acceptable to those who voted for Donald. Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 21, 2024 19:22:04 GMT
Based on what has happened with Gaetz, not sure you can expect that (see here and here, for example)
This thread is not trying to predict the future, it is asking if the CONCEPT of getting around the appointment process is acceptable to those who voted for Donald. Freon It’s always preferable to go thru the confirmation process. Unless there is some dire need. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 19:26:04 GMT
This thread is not trying to predict the future, it is asking if the CONCEPT of getting around the appointment process is acceptable to those who voted for Donald. Freon It’s always preferable to go thru the confirmation process. Unless there is some dire need. Preferable? So you are saying you would not mind going around the process, if it was someone you really wanted, but the Senate did not? Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 21, 2024 19:27:02 GMT
It’s always preferable to go thru the confirmation process. Unless there is some dire need. Preferable? So you are saying you would not mind going around the process, if it was someone you really wanted, but the Senate did not? Freon That’s not at all what I said. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 21, 2024 19:27:41 GMT
This thread is not trying to predict the future, it is asking if the CONCEPT of getting around the appointment process is acceptable to those who voted for Donald. Freon It's probably as ok with some of them as it was for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama supporters; meaning they're not going to care too much. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 19:33:31 GMT
Preferable? So you are saying you would not mind going around the process, if it was someone you really wanted, but the Senate did not? Freon That’s not at all what I said. Do you see the question marks in my response? That means I am asking a question. And I asked it because your comments can be interpreted multiple ways, and I am seeking clarity. Your response to that question did not answer the question. Was that intentional? Do you not want to answer the question? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 19:34:53 GMT
This thread is not trying to predict the future, it is asking if the CONCEPT of getting around the appointment process is acceptable to those who voted for Donald. Freon It's probably as ok with some of them as it was for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama supporters; meaning they're not going to care too much. Well, duh. Sometimes you are clueless, demos. Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 21, 2024 19:35:30 GMT
That’s not at all what I said. Do you see the question marks in my response? That means I am asking a question. And I asked it because your comments can be interpreted multiple ways, and I am seeking clarity. Your response to that question did not answer the question. Was that intentional? Do you not want to answer the question? Freon Let’s suppose there is a war going on, and the defense secretary dies. And the senate is on recess. They sure, do a recess appointment. But if this type situation does not exist I prefer the senate confirmation process. Even though it’s pointed out that many past presidents have not followed it. I prefer trump does follow it. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 19:37:59 GMT
Do you see the question marks in my response? That means I am asking a question. And I asked it because your comments can be interpreted multiple ways, and I am seeking clarity. Your response to that question did not answer the question. Was that intentional? Do you not want to answer the question? Freon Let’s suppose there is a war going on, and the defense secretary dies. And the senate is on recess. They sure, do a recess appointment. But if this type situation does not exist I prefer the senate confirmation process. Even though it’s pointed out that many past presidents have not followed it. I prefer trump does follow it. It seems like a cop-out answer, but I realize it's the most you are willing to give. Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 21, 2024 19:40:12 GMT
Let’s suppose there is a war going on, and the defense secretary dies. And the senate is on recess. They sure, do a recess appointment. But if this type situation does not exist I prefer the senate confirmation process. Even though it’s pointed out that many past presidents have not followed it. I prefer trump does follow it. It seems like a cop-out answer, but I realize it's the most you are willing to give. Freon I don’t believe you read or understand the article II. It’s allowed. Nothing nefarious. I just don’t like when it’s used any any president outside of pressing reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 19:43:24 GMT
It seems like a cop-out answer, but I realize it's the most you are willing to give. Freon I don’t believe you read or understand the article II. It’s allowed. Nothing nefarious. I just don’t like when it’s used any any president outside of pressing reasons. I never said it was illegal. I know it's not. But that's the point of my question. The tradition is that appointees are approved by the Senate. In doing so, it honors the idea of equal branches of government. Going around that process dishonors that idea, and puts too much power in the executive, which I disagree with. And so I'm asking if that's cool with those who voted for him. My concern is always about inching closer to Fascism. I don't care who is doing it, it should be called out, monitored, and discouraged. Freon |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 21, 2024 19:45:51 GMT
Well, duh. Sometimes you are clueless, demos. Freon Lol. Well, clue me in man.
Is this another of your "encroaching fascism" threads?
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Nov 21, 2024 20:34:59 GMT
I don’t believe you read or understand the article II. It’s allowed. Nothing nefarious. I just don’t like when it’s used any any president outside of pressing reasons. I never said it was illegal. I know it's not. But that's the point of my question. The tradition is that appointees are approved by the Senate. In doing so, it honors the idea of equal branches of government. Going around that process dishonors that idea, and puts too much power in the executive, which I disagree with. And so I'm asking if that's cool with those who voted for him. My concern is always about inching closer to Fascism. I don't care who is doing it, it should be called out, monitored, and discouraged. Freon Your posts and logic rarely make any sense. This is a prime example Recess appoints are explicitly allowed. Read article II as I referenced. Presidents have routinely used them. Now you are asking if trump does it is it wrong or are we against him doing it. I clearly gave you an answer. I’d prefer he go thru the senate. If he skips the senate process I’d be against that just as I have when all the other presidents do it for no reason. But the law allows it. A proper question you may consider is simply stating something like I am against recess appointments. I know it’s currently allowed. Should they not be allowed. And maybe you’d even give your own opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 21:04:43 GMT
Well, duh. Sometimes you are clueless, demos. Freon Lol. Well, clue me in man.
Is this another of your "encroaching fascism" threads?
It's about holding those responsible, accountable. It's about planting seeds, with the expectation of growth in the future. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 21, 2024 21:10:23 GMT
I never said it was illegal. I know it's not. But that's the point of my question. The tradition is that appointees are approved by the Senate. In doing so, it honors the idea of equal branches of government. Going around that process dishonors that idea, and puts too much power in the executive, which I disagree with. And so I'm asking if that's cool with those who voted for him. My concern is always about inching closer to Fascism. I don't care who is doing it, it should be called out, monitored, and discouraged. Freon Your posts and logic rarely make any sense. This is a prime example Recess appoints are explicitly allowed. Read article II as I referenced. Presidents have routinely used them. Now you are asking if trump does it is it wrong or are we against him doing it. I clearly gave you an answer. I’d prefer he go thru the senate. If he skips the senate process I’d be against that just as I have when all the other presidents do it for no reason. But the law allows it. A proper question you may consider is simply stating something like I am against recess appointments. I know it’s currently allowed. Should they not be allowed. And maybe you’d even give your own opinion. You have no idea how much effort it takes to change my communication style to accommodate you. To the point however, I do not recall in the past when recess appointments were intentionally leveraged as a tool. Where the parameters necessary for the recess were intentionally contrived, purely to get around the process. Freon |
|
queshank
Legend
Posts: 4,500
Member is Online
|
Post by queshank on Nov 21, 2024 21:14:44 GMT
There is a provision whereby Donald can make appointments without Senate consent. It would require a manufactured disagreement between the House and the Senate on adjournment. The disagreement would not actually exist, it would purely be used to get around Senate consent. Its normal function would be to keep the government functioning in times of legitimate disagreement. My question to you righties is if you would be ok with this misuse of a provision so that Donald can appoint whomever he chooses, thus putting yet more power in the executive. I'm not. Senate approval is to insure the quality and appropriateness of appointees, instead of purely having them chosen based on loyalty alone. Freon I'm fine with it.
Reagan appointed like 200 people with recess appointments.
Clinton around 140.
Bush the Younger around 170.
Obama 32.
Trump made none because both houses of Congress headed by establishment hacks machinated to do "pro forma" sessions and block his appointments.
If Congress can coordinate against the president, then I have no problem with Congress coordinating with the president.
Queshank
|
|
