« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Senate Wants to Punt Constitutional Duty to Advise and Consent

Does anyone in Washington understand the concept of reading your job description and then doing your job? Apparently the esteemed members of the U.S. Senate – including both Republican and Democrat leadership – do not.

You see, they would rather have time to meddle further in the lives of Americans than in performing their constitutionally prescribed duty to advise and consent to Presidential nominees. As David Addington of the Heritage Foundation notes in Heritage WebMemo #3211, Senator Schumer has introduced S.679 and, along with 15 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, would like to reduce the number of Presidential appointments that require consent of the Senate while also establishing a “Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations” within the executive branch.

Addington properly dismisses this idea as detrimental to the Constitutional safeguard against the accumulation of power in one branch. In short -the idea is stupid and the result of busy-bodies who are too lazy to do their actual job effectively rather than coming up with yet another bill to tell us how to live our lives.

The job of a U.S. Senator is not that complicated. How about starting with the basics – like, I don’t know – balancing the budget sometime before the year 2100 and confirming only Presidential nominees who are actually qualified and believe in the Constitution (at this time, I’d like to give a little shout out to the absurdity of those Republican profiles in courage who voted for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – you know who you are… or see here , e.g.).

But, because the Senators of today are more interested in offering the 4000+ bills they offer each Congress so that they can tell you what kind of light bulbs to use, what restaurants must post on a menu in terms of calories or whatever other nonsensical waste of time and abuse of the Constitution they have in mind – they refuse simply to do their job.

And how about going one Congress – just ONE – without creating yet another working group, advisory committee, agency or other group of bureaucrats or politicians who will sit around and advise us on something. Can you do that? Please?

It is almost like Congress – and often, in particular, the Senate is a live parody of itself… carrying out a bad SNL skit before our very eyes on how to be both meddlesome and completely incompetent while offering non-solution “solutions” to problems that were generally created by them in the first place.

This bill is ill-advised, and worse yet, symptomatic of the problem with Washington… failure to do its actual job while coming up with jobs it has no business doing in the first place.

COMMENTS

  • alvin691

    To marginalize the new Tea Party Senators?

  • AceInTX

    maybe it’s time to eliminate some unnecessary agencies which would minmize the number of appointees needing confirmation!!

    • adair

      may have become Confirm and Leave Town.

      I may not have the number correct, but heard that some 72 Federal judges have been confirmed without the Republicans filibustering any of them.

      Come on, boys and girls. You know if Obama wants a judge confirmed, it simply follows that the judge should be filibustered and tossed aside. Not to get even for what was done to Bush’s picks, but to for heaven’s sake protect this country from the kinds of judges Obama picks!!

      How many Wisconsin Wandas do we want on the U. S. bench?

  • usadying

    Congress is already irrelevant. Why not just crown Obama king and be done with it? Can you imagine the Dems sponsoring this when Bush was in the WH?

  • drfredc

    Go figure… Punting on duty is what losers do…

    Especially if there are no consequences to their actions, inactions or beliefs…

    Solution — the Senate and Congress as a group need to reform their pension/benefit systems so they are sensitive, (if not hypersensitive) to short and long term marketplace trends… Their pension need to become defined contribution plans, not defined benefit plans… Congress’s golf plated defined benefit plans (backed up by the taxpayer thru the Pension Guarantee Trust fiasco) should be retitled the Politically Inspired Gold Plated Organization … (PIGPO)

    Actually, perhaps a better solution would be to require they spend as much time earning a living in the private sector as government/union/lobbying jobs to run for office…

  • spinoneone

    Article II, Section 2.
    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: 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.

    So, what the Senate is proposing is legal. Wise? That is entirely another question.

    At the moment, all cabinet officers, and their staffs down to and including assistant secretaries, are confirmed by the Senate. Ditto independent agency heads and some of their senior staff. The Senate also confirms all appointments to the Foreign Service [State Department officers] and all promotions within it and all appointments to the officer ranks and officer promotions within all branches of the U.S. military. An individual Senator can place a hold on any individual appointment or promotion, effectively stopping it.

    • edintexas

      These appointments (e.g. Foreign Service Officer and commissioned officers in the services) are routine and not particularly time consuming until you get the to top echelons, when they actually look at who is being appointed.

      Generally, appointments to positions such as Deputy Assistant Secretary, or Regional Director, are also pretty much a sign-off on the Administration’s nominee. But the Senate still holds the ability to stop particularly problematic/offensive appointments – and on rare occasions they actually use the power. With this change, they would no longer be able to stop the latter types of appointments for the specified jobs.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    They also don’t mind more power to the executive as long as it’s their guy in charge…

    hOpefully 2012 will be a large landslide against the dems…

    • davesinsanantonio

      out on their promises, or on the demands of their constituents.

  • ag8tor

    is not needed at this time. It is truly sickening to watch these clowns try and act as if they were together on something. These “across the aisle” Republicans should do just that…move across the aisle if they don’t have the stones to take on the libs and call them on thier antics. What a pitiful waste of taxpayer money paying this worthless bunch for doing absolutely nothing. If their crowning achievement is Obamacare then what have they accomplished? Are they that out of touch and inept that they don’t hear the Ameircan public laughing at their stupidity? It’s as if we are being governed from another planet. Are they that egotistical or are they showing early signs of dementia?It’s a coin flip on that one!

  • paramedichess

    The Pennsylvania State legislature is proposing reducing the number of legislators by 50. Perhaps we should do the same in congress. And while we are at it, lets cut the size of the congressmen’s staff, budget, and salary. If confirming all those appointees is too much work, it must be too much work to manage all those staffers and deal with such a large budget. Let’s help these poor congressmen and senators get more rest.

  • streiff

    to be honest.

    How far down the ranks do we really think Senatorial confirmation should go. Certainly to cabinet heads and members of independent commissions. I don’t have a problem with it reaching down to heads of agencies within federal departments. But I don’t see the advantage in having the deputy director in an agency requiring Senate confirmation. That seems like a waste of time all the way around.

  • maddog4hire

    on the one hand ,reducing the # of ways to get logged jammed while the peoples business waits seems sensible. Sensibly more time could have been made to do business by reducing government to a manageable size TO BEGIN WITH, thus begging the question why act sensibly now?If obstructing nominees served a purpose before, has it lost that purpose and usefulness? no. both sides did it so if one loses advantage here then both do. quid pro quo? I think not. No the leadership has found a common reason to abdicate the responsibility. what is this new common bond?
    THE TEA PARTY. THEY GUM THE WORKS FOR THE “ESTABLISHMENT” AND THREATEN THE LEADERSHIP as it has existed now for over a decade.
    They (the tea party) must be doing something right.

  • lylem

    our Congress Critters should be paid by their respective States with the amount subject to yearly voter approval.