Consent, Confirmation, [The] Constitution And Other "C" Words
By William Bailey (05/11/03)
Much has been written and spoken (and more will be) about what's going on in the U.S. Senate relative to two of President Bush's nominations to the Federal "bench". As is known and recognized, these two nominees are being filibustered. While the votes are there to CONFIRM these nominees, a minority of Senators has CONNIVED to block the full Senate from performing its responsibility as specified in the CONSTITUTION.
The Founding Fathers were pretty clear in defining the "advise and CONSENT" function of the U.S. Senate when, in Article II, Section 2, they wrote:
"He (the President) 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."
In every instance where the Founders felt the need for something other than a simple majority, such a requirement is clearly enunciated in the CONSTITUTION. There is no such specification of requirement other than a simple majority for the nominations of a President. Yet . . . even with the votes there to CONFIRM, two Presidential nominations are being held up in direct CONTRAVENTION of the specifications of the CONSTITUTION.
On Friday (May 9, 2003), the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate introduced a Senate Resolution (that has eleven co-sponsors) to change the Senate Rules. This proposal seeks to change the procedure to avert, in the future, the endless blocking of Presidential nominees from a vote.
Given the CLARITY of Article II, Section 2 of the CONSTITUTION, it would appear that this action is totally unnecessary. Nowhere in the CONSTITUTION is there a provision that subordinates the CONSTITUTION to the Rules of the Senate. Simply stated, it happens because it is allowed to happen. I suppose this will give some Senators a basis on which to "feel good" when what they need is COURAGE to adhere to the provisions of the CONSTITUTION.
It is proper that an appropriate committee of the Senate have the responsibility to investigate, question, debate and CONSIDER all nominees of the President. In the end, however, the CONSTITUTION grants to the full Senate the role and responsibility of "advice and consent". Unfortunately, here again, the dictates and provisions of the CONSTITUTION are being CONTRAVENED when a committee of the Senate stops the full Senate from voting on nominations by not even allowing the nomination to come to the floor for a vote.
It is, indeed, interesting that the advocates (Leahy, Kennedy, Daschle, Schumer, Lautenberg) of the current situation in the Senate have, themselves, made statements on the floor of the Senate rebuking the very action in which they are currently engaged. I guess it was supportive of their position at that time, but such ardent words do not support their current beliefs. (If, indeed, one can fathom out what their actual beliefs happen to be).
While I seldom, if ever, agree with the Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate (Daschle), I both agree and disagree with one thing he stated on the floor of the Senate on Friday, May 9th. Stating his opposition to the Resolution introduced by the Majority Leader, he said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I agree ! The CONSTITUTION "ain't broke" . . . so quit trying to "fix it" with Senate rules that violate the very authority which grants the responsibility for the function you are supposed to perform. My disagreement with the statement comes from the recognition that, while the CONSTITUTION "ain't broke", there is some "fixing" that needs to be done to get back to the simple process of living by that hallowed document.
In short . . . on any Presidential nomination, if you can muster the votes to defeat it and not CONFIRM, then by all means do so. But, if you either don't have, or can't get the votes for defeat, then quit thwarting the intent of the CONSTITUTION by blocking the full Senate from fulfilling its CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility.
And, finally, unless you're going to live by the provisions of the CONSTITUTION, quit waving those pocket-size versions in our faces as you take the floor of the Senate. Honor your oath of office !
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
