Should the Senate go into a voluntary recess to allow Trump to appoint cabinet officials without due process?

[F1fan]

As most all of us have heard Trump wants the Senate to go into a voluntary recess so he can appoint cabinet members wihtout any of the "advise and consent" that is the standard process. The process is that senators ask questions to determine the qualifications of the nominee. Without this process appointments can be made without concerns being questioned. No president elect has ever asked for this. And at least four of the nominees are highly problematic, and even unfit from a national security risk. The Senate has not issued any formal response, and some members of congress support the recess while others point out the risk and corruption at the heart of Trump's request.

Should the Seanate roll over and sub mit to Trump's request, and not vet any of the nominees? Or do you think the Senate vetting these people is core duty and necessary as representatives of citizens?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A vote in favor of voluntary recess would be interesting;

All those for acquiescence, say aye ...​

 

[Alien826]

The Senate should do its job and be a check on the Administration.

 

[Foxfyre]

As most all of us have heard Trump wants the Senate to go into a voluntary recess so he can appoint cabinet members wihtout any of the "advise and consent" that is the standard process. The process is that senators ask questions to determine the qualifications of the nominee. Without this process appointments can be made without concerns being questioned. No president elect has ever asked for this. And at least four of the nominees are highly problematic, and even unfit from a national security risk. The Senate has not issued any formal response, and some members of congress support the recess while others point out the risk and corruption at the heart of Trump's request.

Should the Seanate roll over and sub mit to Trump's request, and not vet any of the nominees? Or do you think the Senate vetting these people is core duty and necessary as representatives of citizens?

I would prefer that the Senate confirm the appointments that they can confirm in good conscience. That would be all of them except for perhaps Matt Gaetz who really doesn't seem to have the real world experience or expertise for the massively powerful position of A.G. That one should be debated as to whether attitude, courage, vision, intent to restore honor to the position would be enough to override lack of experience.

But if the Democrats are blocking all the appointments to hurt Trump, then recess appointments may be his only option.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As most all of us have heard Trump wants the Senate to go into a voluntary recess so he can appoint cabinet members wihtout any of the "advise and consent" that is the standard process. The process is that senators ask questions to determine the qualifications of the nominee. Without this process appointments can be made without concerns being questioned. No president elect has ever asked for this. And at least four of the nominees are highly problematic, and even unfit from a national security risk. The Senate has not issued any formal response, and some members of congress support the recess while others point out the risk and corruption at the heart of Trump's request.

Should the Seanate roll over and sub mit to Trump's request, and not vet any of the nominees? Or do you think the Senate vetting these people is core duty and necessary as representatives of citizens?

By my reading of the Constitution, what Trump is asking for would be illegal.

The Constitution allows the President to fill vacancies that arise during a recess. It doesn't allow the President to fill vacancies that existed when the Senate was last in session.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But if the Democrats are blocking all the appointments to hurt Trump, then recess appointments may be his only option.

Recent changes to the approval process really limit the ability of the minority party in the Senate to actually block appointments.

...however, the Democrats would have the opportunity to ask the appointees questions that could, potentially, make the appointees look foolish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Constitution's Article I defines the Congress. This is where the Founders intended the real power of government to lie. Articles II and III describe an executive (i.e. to execute the law -- as defined by Congress), and judiciary (i.e. to interpret the law as written by Congress).

The Founders, I have no doubt, saw the President appointment power as something that gave him some measure of control over how the execution of government should proceed, but gave Congress the right to reject choices that it saw as dangerous or contrary to the national interest -- in the event that a President made appointments for venal, personal reasons inconsistent with his executive responsibilities.

The Senate should lean towards accepting presidential appointments where possible so as to allow the creation of a functional team in the executive -- but must keep the national interest at top of mind. That should mean that at least 2 of Trump's appointments must be rejected, for the very valid reason that the appointees have no experience whatever of leading very large and complex bureaucracies -- or of leading anything at all, for that matter. And those are DOJ and DOD.

 

[Foxfyre]

Recent changes to the approval process really limit the ability of the minority party in the Senate to actually block appointments.

...however, the Democrats would have the opportunity to ask the appointees questions that could, potentially, make the appointees look foolish.

If the Democrats can make the appointees look foolish so be it. But given the people that Trump is appointing to his Administration, I wouldn't hold my breath that they will be able to do that. For the most part, it is an awesome group that is savvy, smart, capable and not likely to be susceptible to verbal sabotage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the Democrats can make the appointees look foolish so be it. But given the people that Trump is appointing to his Administration, I wouldn't hold my breath that they will be able to do that. For the most part, it is an awesome group that is savvy, smart, capable and not likely to be susceptible to verbal sabotage.

I can't tell if you're joking.

 

[metis]

Should the Seanate roll over and sub mit to Trump's request, and not vet any of the nominees?

Where's the "Hell No!" option?

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't tell if you're joking.

Humor & deep faith are sometimes non-discernable.
Hence the Poe phenomenon.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Constitution's Article I defines the Congress. This is where the Founders intended the real power of government to lie. Articles II and III describe an executive (i.e. to execute the law -- as defined by Congress), and judiciary (i.e. to interpret the law as written by Congress).

The Founders, I have no doubt, saw the President appointment power as something that gave him some measure of control over how the execution of government should proceed, but gave Congress the right to reject choices that it saw as dangerous or contrary to the national interest -- in the event that a President made appointments for venal, personal reasons inconsistent with his executive responsibilities.

The Senate should lean towards accepting presidential appointments where possible so as to allow the creation of a functional team in the executive -- but must keep the national interest at top of mind. That should mean that at least 2 of Trump's appointments must be rejected, for the very valid reason that the appointees have no experience whatever of leading very large and complex bureaucracies -- or of leading anything at all, for that matter. And those are DOJ and DOD.

The reality of Congress creating a recess for the purpose
of abdicating the duty of advice & consent is subversion
of the Constitution. But loyalty to Trump ranks higher
than that inconvenient obsolete document.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The reality of Congress creating a recess for the purpose
of abdicating the duty of advice & consent is subversion
of the Constitution. But loyalty to Trump ranks higher
than that inconvenient obsolete document.

Don't you mean, "that inconvenient obsolete document that they swore a solemn oath to their God to preserve and protect?"

Hell, I don't even have a god -- but I still keep my promises.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you mean, "that inconvenient obsolete document that they swore a solemn oath to their God to preserve and protect?"

God sent them Trump to save the country.
Both outrank the Constitution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God sent them Trump to save the country.
Both outrank the Constitution.

And God, apparently.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

By my reading of the Constitution, what Trump is asking for would be illegal.

The Constitution allows the President to fill vacancies that arise during a recess. It doesn't allow the President to fill vacancies that existed when the Senate was last in session.

The supreme court said this (2014):

The Supreme Court ultimately adopted a relatively broad interpretation of the Clause in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.4 With respect to the meaning of the phrase Recess of the Senate, the Court concluded that the phrase applied to both inter-session recesses and intra-session recesses. In so holding, the Court, finding the text of the Constitution ambiguous,5 relied on (1) a pragmatic interpretation of the Clause that would allow the President to ensure the continued functioning of the federal government when the Senate is away,6 and (2) long settled and established [historical] practice of the President making intra-session recess appointments.7 The Court declined, however, to say how long a recess must be to fall within the Clause, instead holding that historical practice counseled that a recess of more than three days but less than ten days is presumptively too short to trigger the President’s appointment power under the Clause.8 With respect to the phrase may happen, the majority, again finding ambiguity in the text of the Clause,9 held that the Clause applied both to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess and to vacancies that initially occur before a recess but continue to exist during the recess.10 In so holding, the Court again relied on both pragmatic concerns11 and historical practice.12

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C3-1-1/ALDE_00001144/

 

[Revoltingest]

And God, apparently.

Well, Trump is merely the Hand Of God.
So he ranks between God & the Constitution.

 

[Wirey]

The supreme court said this (2014):

The Supreme Court ultimately adopted a relatively broad interpretation of the Clause in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.4 With respect to the meaning of the phrase Recess of the Senate, the Court concluded that the phrase applied to both inter-session recesses and intra-session recesses. In so holding, the Court, finding the text of the Constitution ambiguous,5 relied on (1) a pragmatic interpretation of the Clause that would allow the President to ensure the continued functioning of the federal government when the Senate is away,6 and (2) long settled and established [historical] practice of the President making intra-session recess appointments.7 The Court declined, however, to say how long a recess must be to fall within the Clause, instead holding that historical practice counseled that a recess of more than three days but less than ten days is presumptively too short to trigger the President’s appointment power under the Clause.8 With respect to the phrase may happen, the majority, again finding ambiguity in the text of the Clause,9 held that the Clause applied both to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess and to vacancies that initially occur before a recess but continue to exist during the recess.10 In so holding, the Court again relied on both pragmatic concerns11 and historical practice.12

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C3-1-1/ALDE_00001144/

So, I guess I know how Gaetz gets in.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So, I guess I know how Gaetz gets in.

We will see. Both chambers need to agree to adjourn for more than 3 days. There is a clause that says if the chambers cannot agree then the president can adjourn them. Not sure what those requirements are.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C4-1/ALDE_00013353/

 

[Wirey]

We will see. Both chambers need to agree to adjourn for more than 3 days. There is a clause that says if the chambers cannot agree then the president can adjourn them. Not sure what those requirements are.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C4-1/ALDE_00013353/

If it was just a political hustle, whatever. But the AG may be a pedophile who paid underaged girls for sex while he did drugs with them seems like maybe not the one you should use a shortcut on. Let the report come out, or find someone, you know, who won't drip poisonous slime all over the office. I hear the Q-Anon shaman is available. That's a step up.