-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In my latest column at the University of Mobile’s twelve23 site, I offer a proposal that some conservatives won’t like, but that is fair to all sides, no matter who is in power, and that would normalize the process of how nominations by the president are (or aren’t) approved. In short, it eliminates the recess-appointment power altogether, but it guarantees a final answer on a nominee within six months. ON a final cloture vote, however, it would take only 55 senators, not 60, to move to a final, majority vote. (In other words, a filibuster to extend debate up until six months could still require 60 votes to overcome, but at the six-month time at the latest, final consideration would then take 55, not 60.)
Again, I explain it all here.
Mender| 1.17.12 @ 10:45AM
Good idea.
Going further, one proposal I've seen and liked is that if a president wins election he has the right not to have the platform he was elected on defeated by filibuster, except under really exceptional circumstances. It can be defeated in a vote if the other side has the votes, but if a president ran on a ticket of doing something he should have the right to bring it through to a majority vote. I think that's fair.
Mike 3/505| 1.17.12 @ 12:17PM
My question is..."why?" If an appointment is so "bad" that it cannot get 60 votes...even from a hostile Senate, is it really in the best interest of the country? Advice and Consent is meant to be just that...not a rubber stamp for POTUS.
We give far too much credit to "getting stuff done." Our government is structured to impede getting stuff done...for a reason.
Regards,
Mike
George S| 1.17.12 @ 12:37PM
There are words in the Constitution that may come into conflict with your amendment. The word "Consent" is used in the nominating clause, not "Vote" or "Concur" or "Passed" as are used elsewhere. Once Congress is directed to vote, it is no longer consent. The consent will then be predicated upon a predetermined number of votes where the Constitution only specifies that for veto overrides, to make treaties or to propose amendments. Concurring with 55 votes is not the same as offering consent -- Congress has just taken away some of the Executive's power.
Oldefarte| 1.17.12 @ 2:22PM
It truly is mostly 'inside baseball', legalese, or GAMING THE SYSTEM. Whether conservatives or liberals are flown under the radar in order to get them placed within an administration isn't so much the issue, since a president should be able to hire/employ whomever he pleases to serve in his administration [just as any manager, CEO or boss should be able to do in private industry]. Obama should have the right to select whoever he pleases to work for him, even though his choices conflict with the opinions of conservatives. The whole essential point should be that the American taxpayer-voters made a huge/critical error in electing Obama on 11/4/08, so to a certain repect we can only blame ourselves for allowing that to occur. We can't retroactively now cry foul when he hires other radicals to serve in his administration, since we are ultimately to blame for giving him this opportunity to do so in 2008. The one/only solution rest with 11/4/12, and the rest is irrelevant to that fact!!!!!!!!!
Mike 3/505| 1.17.12 @ 10:09PM
"Obama should have the right to select whoever he pleases to work for him, even though his choices conflict with the opinions of conservatives."
Constitution clearly disagrees with you and Quin.
Regards,
Mike
Oldefarte| 1.18.12 @ 10:52AM
Even though technically you are no doubt probably correct, in a general sense a president [just as should a CEO in the private sector] should have this right. However, as I stated above, the SOLUTION to this problem detailed by Quin's article is to ELECT THE PROPER/CORRECT PRESIDENT [along with congressmen/representatives etc] as far as the citizens/voters of this country are concerned. The latter will insure to a reasonable extent that a proper president/congress will thereafter select/hire as their employees individuals who are also agreeable to the citizens'/voters' wishes. The problem currently for this nation which Quin details is this president's selected choices as employees, BUT the initial source of said problem was the citizens'/voters' selection/election of this president to begin with on 11/4/08!!!!!!!!!!!