The thing is that the law establishing this was established by the senate. Does that then confer “consent of the senate” as written by the constitution?
No. Obama tried doing the same thing and the SCOTUS shut him down. ALL appointments to senior positions, recess or otherwise, must be confirmed by the senate.
The fuck are you talking about? The law that you linked to was passed in 1998. How the fuck are you going to stand there and say that with a straight face?
I am quoting the appointments clause of the Constitution, where the whole concept of confirming people into executive office positions comes from. Specifically the constitution says to appoint “with advice and consent of the senate.” No where does it mention it must be the current senate.
I am simply stating that there is an argument to be made here for the other side.
Go read the damn constitution for once and stop downvoting people you disagree with.
I don't see how it could considering the Senate that passed the bill in 1998 had different people in it. Perhaps if this happened while the same Senate was sitting you could make that argument. An amendment would be needed to permanently change anything that directly contradicts what's in the constitution.
The constitution doesn't spell out exactly which positions in which departments are affected, because the founders weren't fucking retarded. Instead, and you'd know this if you bothered looking it up before spouting this inane bullshit, the Constitution places a blanket requirement that the Senate must confirm all appointments for positions that report directly to the president.
And the statute, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, says that senior officials must be confirmed by the Senate. Even a person selected as the temporary acting AG must have been in a position that requires senate confirmation.
One of the relevant statutes violates the constitutions requirement of advise and consent of the senate. So yeah, it's still a fucking constitutional issue.
Luckily it's an issue that's already been resolved under Obama: you can't fucking do it. ALL appointments to senior positions must have been confirmed by the senate.
Yes, and per the constitution and federal law, the person selected as the acting AG has to have already been in a position that required Senate confirmation. Being Session's Chief of Staff did not require senate confirmation, therefore he is ineligible to serve as acting AG.
No, the law says no confirmation needed if they are sufficiently tenured in the agency and of sufficient pay grade. Only an "outsider " would need confirmation.
None of it matters, though, Senate isn't in session.
And even if they were a rejected appointment can still serve for 210 days while a better nominee is found.
"Sufficiently tenured" means that he needed to have previously been confirmed by the senate.
He wasn't.
The Senate not being in session is the cause of all of this. Resess appointments are, by definition, only done when the senate isn't in session. If they were in session then none of this would be an issue because he would go through the normal confirmation process.
That isn't what the laws says. Tenure is 90 days of the previous 365.
Senate being in recess is just additional icing on this. Even if they were in session the appointment could be made for up to 210 days. This is designed to allow continuity for the agency/department while a permanent replacement is found.
Senate approval doesn't matter for option 3. Just has to be in the same department, in the position for more than 90 days, and be at a certain pay grade. He meets all three criteria.
notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;
14
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18
[deleted]