Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
House GOP Plays Hardball on Mattis Appointment
Breaking from Politico:
House Republicans released a short-term spending bill Tuesday containing language designed to speed confirmation of retired Gen. James Mattis to be Donald Trump’s defense secretary. The move will force Senate Democrats to decide whether to oppose the budget legislation over the matter — and risk a government shutdown — ahead of a Friday deadline.
The language would still require Mattis to receive 60 votes for a waiver needed to join Trump’s Cabinet because of his recent military service. But it would expedite the Senate process in advance of Trump’s swearing-in.
Risking a government shutdown to gain a conservative victory? Hopefully the GOP will get used to this having-a-backbone thing.
Published in General
None of that really applies to this one thing. This is about the President and Senate asserting their power under the Constitution.
I am on record as saying that the POTUS should note that Congress is not given the ability to legislate away its ability to legislate. As such, any regulations not spelled out in law are against the Constitution. Therefore, all regulations are null and void. Further, Congress is not given the ability to establish an legislature independent of itself or the Executive. Therefore, all ruling by such things as the NLRB are null and void.
I am on strong ground in an interpretation of what the text of our Constitution says. These actions would roll back, overnight, the regulatory state put into place. Smash it, in fact. Trump won’t do it, but it is what is needed to shock Congress back into action.
I am sure y’all will all be aghast, and I might even be compared to a dictator for advocating this radical reduction in power of the Executive. Have fun.
Cheers,
Bryan
They are not “picking and choosing when to follow the law and when not to follow the law,” by passing a law to exempt Matthis from a law passed by a previous Congress. They are passing a new law, which specifically allows Matthis to serve despite the provision of an older law. This is the purpose of Congress: to pass laws. To pass new laws and to modify old laws. If Congress amends an act of Congress by a new act of Congress and the President signs the law that is the system working.
I think there are good reasons to keep the provision that Secretary of Defense shall not have served in the military for the last seven years. But I also think there are good reasons to amend the law when circumstance dictates. As long as Congress is forced to think about the reasons to make an exception, and get at least half of both houses to agree to the exception, and the President to sign off, that is the system working.
Seawriter
This, exactly
Or that I didn’t have time to address it yet. Sheesh you’re unkind sometimes.
I like your interpretation and think it’s valid. Now, if we think doing the full null and void thing all at once is too much, perhaps President Trump can do an executive order that will require every newly proposed regulation from the executive branch or independent bodies to go to congress for enactment along with some number of regulations that will be immediately dropped. Additionally, he could require that any other existing regulation that may be challenged or any action by a regulatory body for a violation of any regulation not enacted into law by the Congress must be enacted into law before enforcement. I’m sure there are any number of variations of this that could be effective.
I agree with this interpretation, but Congress passing a law is very different than both Congress and The President just ignoring the law as currently written.
Democrats might be putting up a fuss for no other reason than that they don’t want to look weak to their constituents by going along with the first extraordinary action of Republicans.
Also, they might be able to get an extra concession from Republicans.
So you think the press, which we are supposed to fear in other cases, is going to present it that way?
You can until the state attempts to use said law to coerce you, then you can challenge it through the judiciary. Or during the time you are ignoring it you might advocate that your state declare it void within its borders and fight back that way.
Not to argue with your point, but do you think the public credibility of the press now is equal to what it has been when the republican congress displayed such fear?
Right, but as a practical matter it seems unlikely that they could do much on the waiver, either.
How would that differ from “advise and consent”? Why do they need the law if they’re going to waive it from time to time?
Okay fair question. But then answer this, was that credibility shot overnight? The were scary in 2013 but now have no affect on the minds of the people? There is a logic disconnect here with our new found gusto for shutdowns.
It helps to maintain the norm of civilian control that the Sec. Def. is generally a civilian. The current arrangement encourages that without stopping the best people from taking the position.
I think the law is not only unconstitutional, it is just a bad idea. We are in no danger of a military coup.
Just a reminder, Jim Mattis is civilian.
Ah – well… that’s where I might disagree, though I’m not certain. I would imagine that if congress passes a law that requires a waiting period, it can also pass a law granting a waiver. The only thing that would create a constitutional question would be if the executive simply granted a waiver. That said, it should most certainly pass a waiver rather than ignoring the law. As was noted above, it’s a relatively easy solution that would save a lot of trouble.
I see.
I don’t necessarily disagree. But you’re talking about your version of how things ought to be, not what they are. Unfortunately, jurisprudence doesn’t quite work in the manner you’re hoping. As the SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution over time, so it is. But it’s not necessarily how it should be, or how it was intended. There are things future courts can go back on, and things they cannot.
So – we could probably clear things up by agreeing on terms. You’re wrong inasmuch as you say “unconstitutional” to mean “not in line with what our constitution intended.” But all that means is that you’re talking past one another. A law that says the SoD needs to have been a civilian of 7 years is likely constitutional, but you are certainly free to argue that it goes against the intent of our founders.
All fair points. But it really would be the Dems shutting down the government. Fact is, if you have a president openly saying “I’m ready to sign the bill that Republicans have produced,” and the Democrats block it, even our press will have a hard time making it a Republican shut-down. It will literally be the democrats blocking, and even if the press says they have good reasons, Republicans can say “we’re all ready to sign!” And Trump surely will.
I agree with Ryan. (What? This is weird. I don’t like it. Time for whiskey.)
Lawyers is no ruling that cannot be undone. In fact there is no ruling that cannot be changed. There is no ruling on this law at all right now.