Sunday, March 28, 2010

Do you think recess appointments are appropriate or not (i.e. are they a violation of advise and consent)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/27/AR2010032703085.html

10 comments:

PMiner said...

Wow, i hope im not the only one who felt like yesterday was sat and forgot to blog... Mr. Bretzmann, feel like being nice and extending it one day? :)

These recess appointments seem a bit unfair... But reguardless, either party will do them. So Obama shouldnt get the look of disaproval, because im sure many presidents from both parties have done this

Famigliettim said...

recess appointments are very important in getting new people in office even if it only for a little while. and i totally agree with paul that i forgot to blog.
they are a bit unfair, because they can be representing people who didn't choose them.

AAgostini said...

It is in a sense unfair because people are receiving positions without approval based only on the choice of the president. Without the Senate's approval, it is technically a violation of advise and consent. However, recess appointments are valid according to the Constitution, and Obama is not the first president to enact this constitutional power.

Tereza said...

I think that the Senate's approval is very important to the checks and balances of government, and the positions these appointees are getting are crucial. Bypassing the Senate with recess appointments, is something Obama can do, and will do. Practicing his authority over the Senate, in some ways shows Obama's leadership and strength. Questioning the appropriateness of recess appointments is controversial. As Obama explained his reasoning: the positions need to be filled in order to make the government run more effectively. However, the Senate has the authority of approval.

nsomers said...

Technically it is a violation of advise and consent because the Senate is not approving these appointments, but as others have said above, several Presidents have done this before and the appointees are only there until the end of the current Congress.

jmarczewski said...

The recess appointment may seem a bit irrelevant, since the appointees only last till the end of the current congress. But, as we've learned, incumbents win reelection far more often than challengers. Though these positions are technically not "incumbents" as we usually would think of them, they are given an extra chance to prove themselves and, in turn, would likely be nominated by Congress in the next election.

Paul and Mike, have no fear, the blog wasn't due until Wednesday night this week. I remembered this at appx. 11:05 Wednesday night...

rlepak said...

Recess appointments are clever. The president claims the seat needs to be filled, but the Senate isn't there to approve. I think they are a violation of advise and consent. It takes power away from the legislative branch and gives more to the executive branch. Plus, what would happen if they person appointed is a total nub?

aprichard said...

It all depends on which political party the viewer is sympathetic to. Things went smoothly with the Bush term but things have been incredibly hostile towards Obama's changes. The recess appointments seem just in this case. The Senate, (republicans) had continually shot down majority of his nominees and by postponing floor votes that are necessary for their acceptance. He warned them that he would do this if they continued to block the nominees he proposed. It is hard to fill government posititons if none of the nominees are accepted.
On a constitutional and legal viewpoint, it seems as if the President is taking authority that does not belong to him or her and robbing the system of being able to weed out faulty nominees. The checks and balances system would appear to be able to scorn this but recess appointments are a way for the President to check congresses authority. If the Senate is blocking all forward progression when it is the Presidents job and duty to make these appointments, then it becomes appropriate. In this case, nothing shady occured, and there was respectable logic behind the President's choices. If they are legal in the constitution, then they are appropriate. They would not be included if they were inappropriate.

Astoiber said...

I think they are disgusting and inappropriate. You have to ask for consent if you are going to go around doing tings like that. I'm appalled.

Nick Berry said...

I think these recess appointments show a little too much power by the president. It may be a violation of the checks and balances of our federal government. Maybe Congress should pass a law lowering the required votes in the Senate for an appointment, so the president could have gotten a few appointments passed but not all.