Under the US Constitution...

Daylight63 said:
I've heard that is kind of the plan. Not sure or not. Either way it's a solid approach to ensure that Trump gets what he wants. And really that's all we are here for now.

I like the idea of appointing a man under investigation for possible sex trafficking to be Atty General. That's a power move. And appointing a guy who served in the National Guard on the weekends but spent most of his time as a second tier presenter on Fox to run the world's largest military screams "Big Dick Energy".

There's no reason ANY ONE of these picks should have to be vetted by the other branches of government, ESPECIALLY when there's a slim chance that they might not make it through.

We tore out the guardrails FOR A REASON.
Click to expand...
Stop making shit up, Twilight. Your gaslighting won't work.
 
The Trump Administration said:
iu



Just in case you don’t understand what’s going on here, President Trump may be the greatest civics teacher in our country’s history.

Read and learn.

Silly Swampers shrilly screeching the "unqualified" mantra are trying to pretend they are champions of “Senate confirmation”, without considering whether or not it is constitutional.

This is purposeful.

Governmental power should only ever be exercised on behalf of the people. President Trump just received a massive mandate from the people of America.

President Trump wants this fight and he wants it to be very public.

Why?

All of nis nominees will now be contrasted with the “preferred” candidates of the DC establishment, and the Swampers suffer by comparison.

But it’s more than that.

This fight is over whether or not a president gets to choose his own cabinet to run the Executive Branch.

For too long, the Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch's powers in regards to appointments.

The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.

In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts - within their states.

This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. That's when the Democrats invented the Spoils System that poisoned American government with partisan political patronage.

By the late 19th century, in the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era, Republican presidents and Democrat senators began to clash over control of these positions, prompting some to push the notion of "advice and consent" of the Senate beyond the scope of the Constitution, while also expanding the federal bureaucracy that was beholden to the party.

What started as Senatorial “courtesy" morphed into Senate “approval".

As the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when a Republican majority in Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions supposedly subject to Senate confirmation.

Trump is taking us back to the Constitution.

As the founders intended, Congress will no longer be able to prevent a president elected by the people from fulfilling his promises by appointing the people he wants.

This is the beginning of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch and re-establishing the separation of powers.




U.S. Senate: About Executive Nominations | Historical Overview

www.senate.gov www.senate.gov
Click to expand...
Ah, TTA, the self-proclaimed guardian of constitutional fidelity while utterly butchering its meaning in service of your idol. Let me clear the fog of your argument: Trump, the "greatest civics teacher"? That's like calling the Hindenburg a lesson in aviation safety. Your defense hinges on a fantasy that the framers intended the Senate to play court jester to a monarch’s whims. They didn’t. They established checks and balances, not coronations.

You prattle about mandates and swampers, but Trump barely won 50% of the vote.. A "massive mandate"? Hardly. And your revisionist history of "senatorial courtesy" twisting into "approval" is laughable. The Constitution explicitly gives the Senate the role of advice and consent -- a shared power. Not "courtesy." Not rubber-stamping. It's a constitutional obligation to scrutinize appointments to ensure the competence of those who wield immense public power, something Trump's endless parade of cronies, grifters, and sycophants consistently failed to meet.

This isn’t the Senate overstepping -- it’s the system working as designed. Trump wanted blind loyalty, not qualified governance. If this is your idea of "reining in" Congressional power, it’s nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to gut accountability and install an imperial presidency. That’s not "draining the swamp." It’s flooding it with your own brand of sewage.

Moreover, your link does not say what you think it says. Read it again. 'Shared power', better underline that point.
 
Publius said:
Ah, TTA, the self-proclaimed guardian of constitutional fidelity while utterly butchering its meaning in service of your idol. Let me clear the fog of your argument: Trump, the "greatest civics teacher"? That's like calling the Hindenburg a lesson in aviation safety. Your defense hinges on a fantasy that the framers intended the Senate to play court jester to a monarch’s whims. They didn’t. They established checks and balances, not coronations.

You prattle about mandates and swampers, but Trump barely won 50% of the vote.. A "massive mandate"? Hardly. And your revisionist history of "senatorial courtesy" twisting into "approval" is laughable. The Constitution explicitly gives the Senate the role of advice and consent -- a shared power. Not "courtesy." Not rubber-stamping. It's a constitutional obligation to scrutinize appointments to ensure the competence of those who wield immense public power, something Trump's endless parade of cronies, grifters, and sycophants consistently failed to meet.

This isn’t the Senate overstepping -- it’s the system working as designed. Trump wanted blind loyalty, not qualified governance. If this is your idea of "reining in" Congressional power, it’s nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to gut accountability and install an imperial presidency. That’s not "draining the swamp." It’s flooding it with your own brand of sewage.

Moreover, your link does not say what you think it says. Read it again. 'Shared power', better underline that point.
Click to expand...


Are you denying the validity of recess appointments?
 
Publius said:
Ah, TTA, the self-proclaimed guardian of constitutional fidelity while utterly butchering its meaning in service of your idol. Let me clear the fog of your argument: Trump, the "greatest civics teacher"? That's like calling the Hindenburg a lesson in aviation safety. Your defense hinges on a fantasy that the framers intended the Senate to play court jester to a monarch’s whims. They didn’t. They established checks and balances, not coronations.
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for the dead, Publius.
Publius said:
You prattle about mandates and swampers, but Trump barely won 50% of the vote.. A "massive mandate"?
Click to expand...
Republicans now control the House, the Senate, the executive branch, the Supreme Court, most State legislators, and most State governors. Trump won 57.9% of the vote. That's a lock win, Publius.

That's a mandate, Publius.
Publius said:
Hardly. And your revisionist history of "senatorial courtesy" twisting into "approval" is laughable. The Constitution explicitly gives the Senate the role of advice and consent -- a shared power.
Click to expand...
Not for the cabinet. That's for officers and supreme court nominees.
Publius said:
Not "courtesy." Not rubber-stamping. It's a constitutional obligation to scrutinize appointments to ensure the competence of those who wield immense public power, something Trump's endless parade of cronies, grifters, and sycophants consistently failed to meet.
Click to expand...
No Senate confirmation is required for cabinet members. See Article II.
Publius said:
This isn’t the Senate overstepping -- it’s the system working as designed. Trump wanted blind loyalty, not qualified governance. If this is your idea of "reining in" Congressional power, it’s nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to gut accountability and install an imperial presidency. That’s not "draining the swamp." It’s flooding it with your own brand of sewage.
Click to expand...
Trump isn't going to drain the swamp. He's going to destroy it. This is the purpose of the temporary Department of Government Efficiency.
Publius said:
Moreover, your link does not say what you think it says. Read it again. 'Shared power', better underline that point.
Click to expand...
Go read the Constitution, Publius.
 
The Trump Administration said:
Are you denying the validity of recess appointments?
Click to expand...

Publius said:
they are valid, if they are done in the spirit framer intent as constrained/defined by court rulings.
Click to expand...
I propose that the Trump admin should give as much deference to this "spirit as defined by court rulings" as has been given to rulings such as NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Which is to say ignore it repeatedly.

Operate without an official cabinet if you have to. Trump still has near absolute authority over the executive branch. He can simply use his chosen cabinet as proxies for direct orders.

Really get that executive order pipeline going (those aren't found in the constitution BTW, it is implied that POTUS can make an order at any time). They could make an app just for his chosen cabinet. They draft an order and it's automatically sent to Trump to sign. Anyone who ignores the order can be instantly fired upon direct authority of the president.

What are the courts going to do about that? Injoin the executive branch from obeying the president until such time as he appoints a cabinet the senate will accept? What happens if the senate refuses to consent to any appointment? The deep state just keeps churning on it's own?

I don't think so. Use the military to escort the fired personnel out of the buildings and guard the buildings so they can't come back in. Use the military to secure the networks of these three letter agencies to prevent fired individuals from continuing to connect.

There is always a next step, and given how people just voted SCOTUS will not stand in the way of the president. They will not die on the hill of "The guy you just elected isn't allowed to fire the entrenched bureaucrats you hate so that he can enforce the law of the land".
 
I think it might be much better to watch the Democrats flounder through confirmation hearings and give the public another reason to vote them out of office...
 
WinterBorn said:
Historic mandate? He won by an estimated 1.6% of the popular vote.

He won, but his margin of victory puts him at 16th in presidential elections since WWII.


No, he does not just "get his people". They go through the same process every other administration does.
Click to expand...
Still, he beat Harris.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top