“Or are you that hellbent in giving Obama and the Progressives the tyrannical Administrative State they so ever desire?“
…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
This is one of those posts that all bloggers have – start it, something else grabs the eyeballs, and it just sits. Unlike some of my others, though, there was a little voice saying – yeah this is important. Why? All during the campaign back in 2010, it was “Constitution Frank” Guinta; I remember that because I interviewed him often. He realized which way the political way the wind was blowing and decided to ride it. Problem was, we all believed what he said (and knew what Carol Shea-Porter would do if re-elected – and still do). The problem is that when you go to the mat for someone, which the ‘Grok did during the primary and the general, when you come across stuff like this, you end up doing more than merely wince and cringe (reformatted and emphasis mine):
House passes bill eliminating Senate confirmation for presidential appointees
The House of Representatives is set to consider legislation Tuesday that would exempt certain presidential appointees from having to be confirmed by the Senate. But a number of conservative groups are arguing that the “Presidential Efficiency and Streamlining Act” amounts to Congress neutering itself and giving the executive branch unprecedented power. Presidential appointees that would no longer require Senate confirmation under the legislation include the treasurer of the United States and the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
“The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process,” wrote Thomas McClusky, the senior vice president for the Family Research Council’s legislative arm, in a Monday memo to lawmakers.
Sources told The Daily Caller that there is concern in the ranks among conservatives opposed to the legislation that House leaders will bring the legislation up for a voice vote to avoid putting members on the record.
Gee – no kidding! For years now, the Congress has been making itself more and more irrelevant, mostly by passing legislation that, more and more, lets the Executive Branch decide the details of how their “laws” will actually read. Read through Obamacare; it is strewn with references of “The HHS Secretary shall decide” or tell the Executive Branch regulators “you come up with something”. And don’t YOU think that having the Senate perform its “advice and consent” on the TREASURER of the US might be a wee bit important? As the size of the Federal government grows, and that the power imbalance continues to grow in favor of the Executive Branch (instead of those that are Constitutionally mandated to actually pass the laws), wouldn’t it be important, even MORE important, that if you are giving up on what you are supposed to do, at least make sure that those that will do your job are at least competent?
Or are you that hellbent in giving Obama and the Progressives the tyrannical Administrative State they so ever desire?
Oh, that crack about doing a voice vote (” to avoid putting members on the record“). Well, it seems that some level headed folks pushed to have a vote. And I am glad that they did. You can figure out how NH Congressman from the Second District Charlie “The Progressive Republican” Bass voted (just like his upcoming opponent, Democrat Ann McLane Kuster would have voted).
But it is NH’s Congressman from the First District that gave me the most heartburn here – once again, we see an ostensibly conservative guy voting like his equally hard Left opponent, Carol Shea-Porter would have:
S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass)
Number: House Vote #537 [primary source: house.gov]
Date: Jul 31, 2012 (112th Congress)
S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011
Introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY] on March 30, 2011
Current Status: At President
This vote was taken under a procedure called “suspension of the rules” which is typically used to pass non-controversial bills. Votes under suspension require a 2/3rds majority. A failed vote under suspension can be taken again.
|Yea||R||Guinta, Frank||NH 1st|
|Yea||R||Bass, Charles “Charlie”||NH 2nd|
Yay for you, “Constitution Frank” Guinta!