The AM Forum
March 28, 2024, 07:07:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Senate Dems Treading where they have no authority!  (Read 5860 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« on: July 12, 2005, 03:18:13 PM »

Senate Dems Suggest Names for Court Vacancy (click here,read, then return)



"This understanding of the appointment power was reaffirmed during the ratification debates. In Federalist 76, for example, Alexander Hamilton explained at length that "one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment."21 Noting that a President would "have fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number,"22 — or as we would say today, that the President will be swayed by fewer political pressure groups than the Senate — Hamilton concluded:


In the act of nomination, [the President's] judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.23
Note the very limited role that the Senate serves in Hamilton's view — which, of course, echoes the views expressed at the Constitutional Convention by both those who defended and those who opposed giving the appointment power to the President. In the founders' view, the Senate acts as a brake on the President's ability to fill offices with his own friends and family members rather than qualified nominations, but beyond that, the element of choice — the essence of the power to fill the office — belongs to the President alone. The Senate has the power to refuse nominees, but in the Constitutional scheme it has no proper authority in picking the nominees — either through direct choice or through logrolling and deal-making.
Hamilton was not so ignorant as to deny that deal-making would be the process by which things got done in the Senate — as he writes, legislatures are very often prone to "bargain" by which one party says to another, "'Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'"24 But this legislative propensity was, for Hamilton, a primary reason for giving the appointment power to the President instead of the Senate. Placing the nomination power in the President alone would, he argued, cut down on the degree to which political bargains in the Senate influenced the choice of candidates, because under the Constitutional scheme, all would understand that the power of appointment belonged in the President alone. That understanding, as we shall see, has been eroded in recent years."

Appointment Power of the President (read the whole quoted article here)
Logged
Bacon, WA3WDR
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 881



« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2005, 08:25:10 PM »

Oh my... quick, have Rove dig up some dirt on those Democrats, and phone a few newscasters... that always worked before...
Logged

Truth can be stranger than fiction.  But fiction can be pretty strange, too!
Warren
Guest
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2005, 08:40:13 PM »

Bud,
I don't see what you are complaining about.
The first article you quote  (on Yahoo) talks about the President ASKING Senators (DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS) for their advice on a Supreme Court Nominee.

  Also, you should read the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 says that the President can appoint Justices of the Supreme Court with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate":
 "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"

    Senators who advise the President on a Supreme Court Nominee are merely doing their job.

73 Warren K2ORS


Quote from: WD8BIL
Senate Dems Suggest Names for Court Vacancy (click here,read, then return)



"This understanding of the appointment power was reaffirmed during the ratification debates. In Federalist 76, for example, Alexander Hamilton explained at length that "one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment."21 Noting that a President would "have fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number,"22 — or as we would say today, that the President will be swayed by fewer political pressure groups than the Senate — Hamilton concluded:


In the act of nomination, [the President's] judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.23
Note the very limited role that the Senate serves in Hamilton's view — which, of course, echoes the views expressed at the Constitutional Convention by both those who defended and those who opposed giving the appointment power to the President. In the founders' view, the Senate acts as a brake on the President's ability to fill offices with his own friends and family members rather than qualified nominations, but beyond that, the element of choice — the essence of the power to fill the office — belongs to the President alone. The Senate has the power to refuse nominees, but in the Constitutional scheme it has no proper authority in picking the nominees — either through direct choice or through logrolling and deal-making.
Hamilton was not so ignorant as to deny that deal-making would be the process by which things got done in the Senate — as he writes, legislatures are very often prone to "bargain" by which one party says to another, "'Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'"24 But this legislative propensity was, for Hamilton, a primary reason for giving the appointment power to the President instead of the Senate. Placing the nomination power in the President alone would, he argued, cut down on the degree to which political bargains in the Senate influenced the choice of candidates, because under the Constitutional scheme, all would understand that the power of appointment belonged in the President alone. That understanding, as we shall see, has been eroded in recent years."

Appointment Power of the President (read the whole quoted article here)
Logged
Jack-KA3ZLR-
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2005, 08:52:35 PM »

Evening Gents,

 I think it's going to be interesting who[m], is nominated.
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2005, 11:07:13 PM »

Hi Warren...long time no see !!!

1) The "Gang of 14" asked for the meeting and Mr. Bush agreed. (IMHO His first mistake. He should tell'em to pound salt) Hardly an invite as the AP writer put it. And Presidents have often in the past met with Congressional LEADERS before such decisions.

2)
 
Quote
"If the president sends us a consensus nominee, the Senate will confirm them easily," Reid said. "If he sends us a divisive nominee, we will use all procedural tools at our disposal to protect the American people."



This is not advise and consent !!!! This is a direct threat. The Constitution says nothng about sending the Senate candidates that are "Pre-Approve". Their job is to determine if a candidate has the judicial qualifications for the seat. Not the philisofical bent they would enjoy.

That's the rub Warren.

Problem is......... the ones with the power in the senate don't know how to use it.
Logged
W1UJR
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2005, 07:23:43 AM »

Nominate me, I'd make an excellent justice!
I am a strict constitutionist and promise to shoot down BPL.

Of course, another candidate also comes to mind.



 :badgrin:
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2005, 08:25:14 AM »

Good one Bruce !!!! Course some of his Constitutional ideas are more along original lines than anyone the Libs want Huh?

Quote
Oh my... quick, have Rove dig up some dirt on those Democrats,


Wouldn't need a shovel for that, Bacon. A teaspoon would work just fine ! :evil:
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10057



« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2005, 11:42:35 AM »

Quote from: W1UJR
Of course, another candidate also comes to mind.



He may be a pain in the arse over the air, but in light of recent events, much of what he says makes more sense than what I suspect a lot of us would like to admit.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2005, 11:51:09 AM »

Don,
Could you be saying Bush and his band of pals are not doing a good job?
Logged
W2VW
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3489


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2005, 12:15:03 PM »

Quote from: k4kyv
Quote from: W1UJR
Of course, another candidate also comes to mind.



He may be a pain in the arse over the air, but in light of recent events, much of what he says makes more sense than what I suspect a lot of us would like to admit.


Yeah, the sound of splatter and wind chimes piped into the UN headsets. That should soften them up.
The Arabs would be rolling into Israel within weeks.
No more corporations.
A chicken in every pot and a Maple Syrup vat in every yard (next to the cracked outside speaker).

All kidding aside Irb used to have the effect of making one examine what they were taught about our government.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.049 seconds with 18 queries.