Post from Zak -
Note, I'm not making a judgement on his appointees, merely his violation of the constitution. As much as I hate congressional democrats, I half-hope they try to do something about it.
View Quote
If George W.'s action violates the Constitution, then it does so only in the sense that both you and Sen. Robert Byrd believe that it frustrates the Senate's duty of 'advice and consent' to Presidential nominations.
It represents the only [u]lawful[/u] manner in which George W. can thwart the political machinations of Sen. 'Puff-Daddy' Daschle in refusing to even bring the nominations up in committee for a vote! Much less a vote in the full Senate!
Daschle doesn't because both nominations would pass, just as the President's energy bill would also pass, but is not brought up for a vote in order to give the DEMOs something to run on as an election year issue!
Remember, these individuals were not rejected by the Senate, but through ruse and dilatory actions by Daschle and his colleagues, the posts to which they have been nominated remain vacant!
In mid-1998, of the 320 government positions that are required to receive Senatorial confirmation, a staggering 59 (representing 18%) of those positions were filled by 'recess appointees.'
Now maybe you were hollering to the top of your lungs about it back then! I don't know, because you weren't around back then, I guess.
But I damn sure know that Sen. Robertt Byrd was keeping his damn mouth shut! Why?
Well, who was President back in 1998?
BTW, what does the Constitution say about 'senatorial courtesy' in which each Senator is given an absolute Veto over the appointments for federal positions in his or her state?
Answer: Not a damn thing!
So when I hear you and Sen. Byrd barking about the unconstitutionality of 'senatorial courtesy' then I might pay attention to ya'll's arguments over recess appointments.
Eric The(ButNotBefore!)Hun[>]:)]