General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy does a President have to have his cabinet choices confirmed anyhow? His VP is not
What is the rationale behind this?
Maybe there should be a right to force an impeachment of a cabinet member, but why is confirmation needed?
The cabinet works for the President who is elected by the people and is a separate branch.
Why does that person need to have congress' biased opinion to get seated?
(I can understand a federal judge, who is in office for life, but why a temporary cabinet position that is only in office as long as the President themselves.
Does President Obama get to radify who John McCain has working in his office?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)
elleng
(141,926 posts)but Cabinet members run executive branch agencies; heavy duty jobs, much more than VPotus hanging w POTUS and advising her/him daily.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Second, the President's cabinet appointees must have the consent of the Senate, in accordance with the Constitution.
It is a Constitutional thing.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Jefferson said all MEN (not women) are created equal
Why did he not say ALL are created equal
Why did he keep slaves? And abuse the female one?
Just because "it is in the constitution" doesn't cut it with me, because of what Jefferson did and not wrote.
I can understand a cabinet person needs to speak to the Senate every once in a while, but why to confirm?
And why do they need to be official titles anyhow.
Why not just let Joe Biden do the work of the SOS for the next 4 years and not put up a candidate should Ms. Rice not be confirmed.
better than losing a senate seat to add to the gridlock or worse.
H2O Man
(79,051 posts)I mean, why aren't the square?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)He was in Europe when it was being written and he didn't even sign it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I know he didn't need to do any work in his mansion. He owned people for those jobs.
(oh wait, they weren't considered people back then, were they?)
all are not equal according to Thomas Jefferson.
Just "men" as conforming to whomever Jefferson and the others thought qualified then.
When once thinks of those leaders, that is the first thing that always comes to my mind.
treestar
(82,383 posts)no matter who you think wrote it, as it necessarily would have been an 18th century white man.
Your thinking is so illogical it's practically dangerous. You don't appear to get the concept of the rule of law.
The Founders wrote that the advisors need to be confirmed with advice and consent of the Senate, and they had their reasons for that. To change it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I hate Gotcha's.
but this means ALL amendments are equal
and it means ANY amendment that once was can be gone.
THANKS for proving my point.
It truly is a great big beautiful tomorrow!
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Was Neil Armstrong sexist too?
Under the dictionary for "man":
1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind:
4. a human being; person:
5. a husband.
Its just one of the quirks of the English language.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)and Jefferson lived within a patriarchal system and never considered if his wording my be insensitive to women.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)they were not.
all men are created equal, but only the ones Thomas Jefferson deemed to be of THE he sang.
I would say Thomas Jefferson probably committed the biggest (enter word of your choosing here MadLib(c) style) mankind has known
and they accused BC of parsing his words back when they wasted billions doing that thingy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)To be changed it has to be amended, regardless of the personal lives of those who wrote it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Article 2, Section 2 states that Presidential appointments must be confirmed by the US Senate.
It's part of the checks and balances. The founders did not want the President to act unilaterally. They wanted to assure the people he appoints to the courts and the high offices are sufficiently qualified.
Otherwise you get into situations where a President stands handing out these jobs, to his friends, family, or someone that paid him off.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)They already have the ability to impeach the president if it goes over the top
And all Presidents do give these jobs to someoen they trust anyhow
and the republicans have that Sheldon A. or Grover N. who well fit the pay off definition and are not in office
(and they are called powerbrokers, which they had back in Washington's day too.)
Checks and balances come every 4 years at election time.
(and yes, I know it's in the constiution, that is not the point)
and the VP is only in between presidential elections. Which is why Joe Biden would never get the official title of SOS, but he could act as one the next four years with no loss to anything at all. (except to the haters of Obama and Biden).or those with other angles.
Angleae
(4,801 posts)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 Offi cers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Since the VP is usually elected he isn't confirmed.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Called the Appointments Clause and is the source of the phrase "Advice and Consent" of the senate for presidential appointments.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:
[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.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent
Extensive background on the 'advise and consent' issue:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)to be seated in the cabinet. The idea that the president can just put someone in there without any feedback is troubling to me. I say this because the gop will get the presidency again someday, and i want those people to have to go to the senate.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)especially as the Dems are going to do away with the fillibuster according to reports
leaving a GOP senate to do as they please(which is why they so desparately are the single largest group shouting out for John Kerry to be SOS at this time, to give his seat back to them)
except for this board, and Kerry's people, I can't say I hear anyone in the USA wanting him to leave the senate and become the new SOS.
But I do hear all republicans/tea/libertarians are itching for just that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the one that says All Men are created equal (except those that are not, and it forgot to mention Women)
yup, that was some truth, wasn't it???
talking about parsing words
and not one person in that room sought a different wording? WTF was up with that???
and we call those people heroes???
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Did you not ever question the line
"All men are created equal"
It specifically does not say ALL. Nor does it mention women.
It specifically say ALL MEN
the great Thomas Jefferson and the other (old boy network) did not believe ALL.
they parsed their words specific to ALL MEN
it was not just phrasing, it was on purpose. Being that ALL were obviously not Equal and slavery existed for many decades afterward, didn't it?
Til the 13th clarified some of that wording.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Cabinet positions are established by law, thus Senate confirmation is required under Article II., Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
TrueBlueinCO
(86 posts)you may recall voting for Obama/Biden in the past election?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)First, that Congress was clearly conceived of by the founders as being the most important and powerful branch of government; and second, that the few original Cabinet offices were conceived of as being significant positions, like European ministries. Senatorial confirmation was a way to make sure such positions were "checked" by the Congress as part of the overall system of checks and balances; they were, in fact, a way of making sure the President couldn't do too much on his own (as European monarchs had done with regard to their national legislatures). It may also be helpful to remember that the original Cabinet was just the Big Four: State, War, Treasury, and Justice; it's easy to see why one might not want the execute branch to have exclusive control over who sat in those chairs.
spanone
(141,609 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)delegated by Congress and/or dependent on Congressional funding.