"Advise and Consent" of presidential nominations

[housewolf]

I've been hearing a lot of things lately, particularly from senators.

Things like "the president deserves the team he selects."
"The president deserves to have his nominees confirmed."
"The president has a right to have his nominees confirmed."
"The senate should support the president's nominees."

And so on.


Our constitution grants the president the responsibility to nominate individuals to governmental positions "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Here is the actual wording from Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitutioin:
"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: ..."

This says to me that the president has the authority to nominate people to fill posts, but that he can only fill them if he has received the advice and consent of the senate.

So I've been thinking, what does that mean?

Take that key word "nominate." It means "suggest." Nothing more. It doesn't mean "select." It just means "suggest."

If the senate has the responsibility to "consent," doesn't that mean that it's their responsibility to DECIDE?

And if they are the ones who decide, doesn't the onus of responsibility concerning appointments really lie with the senate to decide on appropriate nominations for appointments? Isn't the quality and effectiveness of appointments really the province of the senate? It's it THEIR JOB to make sure that appoinments are fill with nominees who THEY find worthy on each person's merit?


In recent years the onus of responsibility concerning appointments has been on the president and his suggestions. The senate's habit has been to simply agree to the president's suggestions, regardless of how the senate itself evaluates the individuals.

If the senate simply passes the presidents nominees under the idea that "the president deserves to have the team he wants," is the senate doing its job properly?

If a senator says "I believe the president deserves to have his nominees confirmed" is such a senator performing his or her constitutional duty to "advise and consent" to the nominee?


I don't think so. It seems to me such a senator is only performing half of the constitutional requirement by "consenting" to the nominee. Is it not the job of the senate to confirm only nominees it believes will be effective in the postion and benefical to the United States?
If a senator votes to confirm a nominee that he or she does not think would beneficial to the country, isn't such a senator failing their constitutional duty?

Is it not the senate's responsibility to take concerns about nominees back to the president? Does not the president have the ethical responsibility to pay attention to the "advice" that the senate gives him?


Help me out with this - what do you think?

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

[manly]

1. advice and consent

You are 100% correct.

[AirAmFan]

3. Not just advice and consent, but also CONSENSUS of Senators

is essential for filling offices and making laws that last longer than a Presidency. Why isn't it possible for simple majorities of Senators and Representatives to amend the Constitution? Because the Constitution is America's mission statement, not the RNC's or the DNC's.

The same principle applies to lifetime appointment of judges. If they are not seen to be neutral interpreters of the Constitution, then how is Constitutional rule any better than the British imperialism that preceded it?

Requiring supermajorities helps ensure that preponderances of BOTH parties agree on fundamental decisions, and that laws and judicial apppointments flowing from those decisions represent the broad interests of preponderances of Americans.

[BillZBubb]

2. You've got it right.

The Senate was never supposed to be a rubber stamp for whoever a president nominated. Usually, for low level appointments, the Senate just lets everyone pass. But for significant appointments, the Senate historically has--and always should--make an independent judgment of the candidate's fitness for the office.

Any Senator who defers to a President on any appointment without verifying that nominee's fitness is not doing their job. The Constitutional check is there for a reason.

The right wingnuts conveniently forget why it was placed there in the first place whenever one of their nominees is challenged. They also need to be reminded it was put in place before the advent of political parties, so it was supposed to have bite not be a majoritarian rubber-stamp.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

4. I don't think the president

has any "ethical" responsibility. The senates job is to either say yea or nay. If they say nay then he has to nominate someone else. The president shouldn't get involved with senate business.