A Better Solution To Recess Appointments
Once again Congress is letting party politics get in the way of doing what is right for the country as a whole. We have been without an ambassador to the UN since January of this year. While Bolton may be an outspoken critic of the international body, he is an intelligent and highly qualified candidate to serve. During this critical period of UN reform, it is essential that an ambassador be in place prior to the convening of the General Assembly in mid-September. In Bolton, however, the Democrats have found new ammunition to argue against the pursuit of democracy in Iraq and attempt to bolster their own positions for the mid-term elections next year. This is patently outside of the spirit of the “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution.
The intent of the presidential power for recess appointments was to provide a means for continuity of critical government offices when it would be impractical to obtain Senate consent. This was a necessary result of 18th century communications and the fact the Congress was only in session for about 6 months out of the year. Of late, however, both parties have used this power to place their preferred candidates in offices when the prospect of Senate confirmation was doubtful.
Sen. Kennedy declared “It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess. It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent…” I have failed to find any evidence that he held the same opinion regarding some of Clinton’s recess appointments. Clinton made a total of 140 recess appointments, including at least one (James Hormel) during a 10-day recess. Clinton also made three appointments of ambassadors during the summer recess of 2000, all three of which went to supporters of Gore’s presidential campaign. For those keeping score, all three came during the same 5-week recess about which Kennedy is now complaining. If selling ambassadorships for political contributions does not rise to the level of abuse of power, an interim appointment of Bolton to the UN certainly does not.
The unfortunate aspect of this politicking is that the Constitution also provides the President another power, seldom if ever used, which could be employed instead of recess appointments. That power is the power to recall the Senate. Although few Congress Critters would admit it, the purpose of Congress is to serve the interest of the country as a whole, not the specific area from which the member hails. While everyone certainly needs a vacation, it should not be used as a political tool to prevent critical business from being conducted. A recall would force them to uphold their obligations.
Granted, if the President used the power of recall, the Senate could immediately vote to adjourn. Doing so, however, would not be in their best interest, as it would expose their true intent of playing party politics. As often as they adjourn, the President could recall them. Their failure to act on a nomination would be exposed, not as serving the country, but rather as blocking any but their “preferred” candidate for the office. The voters would not long stand for this behavior and in all likelihood would not return the Senator at the next election cycle. In my opinion, this fact makes the recall a preferred action over the recess appointment, especially since the other party will cry “foul” and use the contested candidate as fuel for the next election in the latter case.
Using the recall will force the Senate to debate the relative merits of the candidate, keeping the focus on this person and this office, rather than some abstract concept of Republicans versus Democrats. Voters will not long remember who was confirmed for a particular office unless the Senate is able to artificially turn the nomination into the larger issue of party politics. The recess appointment only serves to allow Senators on both sides of the aisle to do just that. This is a disservice to the voting public and completely outside the scope of the duty involved in the “advice and consent” clause.
The intent of the presidential power for recess appointments was to provide a means for continuity of critical government offices when it would be impractical to obtain Senate consent. This was a necessary result of 18th century communications and the fact the Congress was only in session for about 6 months out of the year. Of late, however, both parties have used this power to place their preferred candidates in offices when the prospect of Senate confirmation was doubtful.
Sen. Kennedy declared “It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess. It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent…” I have failed to find any evidence that he held the same opinion regarding some of Clinton’s recess appointments. Clinton made a total of 140 recess appointments, including at least one (James Hormel) during a 10-day recess. Clinton also made three appointments of ambassadors during the summer recess of 2000, all three of which went to supporters of Gore’s presidential campaign. For those keeping score, all three came during the same 5-week recess about which Kennedy is now complaining. If selling ambassadorships for political contributions does not rise to the level of abuse of power, an interim appointment of Bolton to the UN certainly does not.
The unfortunate aspect of this politicking is that the Constitution also provides the President another power, seldom if ever used, which could be employed instead of recess appointments. That power is the power to recall the Senate. Although few Congress Critters would admit it, the purpose of Congress is to serve the interest of the country as a whole, not the specific area from which the member hails. While everyone certainly needs a vacation, it should not be used as a political tool to prevent critical business from being conducted. A recall would force them to uphold their obligations.
Granted, if the President used the power of recall, the Senate could immediately vote to adjourn. Doing so, however, would not be in their best interest, as it would expose their true intent of playing party politics. As often as they adjourn, the President could recall them. Their failure to act on a nomination would be exposed, not as serving the country, but rather as blocking any but their “preferred” candidate for the office. The voters would not long stand for this behavior and in all likelihood would not return the Senator at the next election cycle. In my opinion, this fact makes the recall a preferred action over the recess appointment, especially since the other party will cry “foul” and use the contested candidate as fuel for the next election in the latter case.
Using the recall will force the Senate to debate the relative merits of the candidate, keeping the focus on this person and this office, rather than some abstract concept of Republicans versus Democrats. Voters will not long remember who was confirmed for a particular office unless the Senate is able to artificially turn the nomination into the larger issue of party politics. The recess appointment only serves to allow Senators on both sides of the aisle to do just that. This is a disservice to the voting public and completely outside the scope of the duty involved in the “advice and consent” clause.
posted by exsubdriver at 3:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home