Time for a Grand Bargain?
Adam Freedman ·
Sep 22, 2010 at 6:23am
I don't usually agree with Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman, but he has an interesting proposal in today's Wall Street Journal. It goes like this --
- Pass legislation requiring the President to submit all "senior" appointments to the Senate for confirmation, i.e., no more "czars" to evade the "advice and consent" requirement; and
- In return, the Senate changes its rules to require an up-or-down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days, thus removing the ability of senators to "blackmail' the administration by holding up nominations.
So what do you think? I kind of like it as a way of bringing back advice and consent. And when the GOP recaptures the White House (sooner rather than later, I hope), it would be nice if the President could get his cabinet in place without having to please Bernie Sanders.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Time for a Grand Bargain?
I think it also suits the mood of the country, which seems less about partisanship than about ending the self-serving deal-making. Except on rare occasion the administration gets its people in anyway -- but this provides voters the transparency they need. Yet contrary to all the bipartisan talk initially, the bunker mentality seems to have set in and I don't see this surviving a veto.
Aug '10
Re: Time for a Grand Bargain?
The second part is fine, but not the first. I think the czars are a manifestation of frustration on the part of presidential administrations that they have great trouble getting hold of the bureaucracy/vast administrative state. This goes back to the Reagan administration. It was during this time that Meese and others began talking up an old concept--the unitary executive. More presidential control of the bureaucracy (and less Congressional interference) would make the bureaucracy more accountable and the president more responsible. The contours of this debate were first formed in the very first Congress during the debate on the President's removal power. Madison took what would now be called the unitary executive position (the president has sole power of removal over superior officers). So I think more involvement by the Senate would just encourage the idea that executive power can be diluted and parceled out in various ways. See also Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson.
Jun '10
Re: Time for a Grand Bargain?
The link to the articles is not working for me --might be behind the paywall anyway. I read the article -- its a sad commentary that honoring the clear constitutional intent should require a grand bargain, trading off the presidential tendency toward the imperial for the senatorial penchant for abuse of power by putting their own pet projects and favored appointments ahead of the nation's business. I don't see that either side is likely to put the interests of the nation first but Congress and especially the House should try to defund the czars. The late Senator Robert Byrd made some pretty compelling arguments, based on the Constitution and institutional self-respect, that the Senate could not sit idly by while advise and consent was eviserated