Rice: Bush May Bypass Senate on Bolton

[owl_the_beatnik]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/un_ambassador_6


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is keeping open the possibility that President Bush will bypass the Senate to get John R. Bolton installed as U.N. ambassador temporarily if Democrats persist in holding up a confirmation vote.

It's about time.

[Wadi66]

whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait just a darn minute. He wants to appoint Bolton temporarily, and bypass the Senate, which is the same as appointing Bolton WITHOUT Senate confirmation. That's going too far. There is a reason we have a Constitution. If the Senate Republicans can't get their crap together, you don't throw the Constitution out the window in frustration.

[Bumblebee]

I think they meant they "may" bypass the senate "temorarily", while the Democrats are obstructing progress. (as usual)

[owl_the_beatnik]

Yes, the key word of that quote is "TEMPORARILY"

[Wadi66]

And what I didn't put in my post which I should have is..... what if the democrats NEVER ratify his appointment. At what point in time would Bush replace him?? How about... never. For Bolton to be the Ambassador temporarily without so much as a hint of ever being okayed by the Senate, dramatically reduces his effectiveness in the UN. It will depend on how THEY view him. Very little of what he says will carry much weight because they will know that Bush didn't have enough votes in the Senate and in their minds at least, Bolton doesn't have the full Senate behind him. So then, word has to filter throughout the UN that Bolton is there for keeps. Ah yes, and what does that do for our Constitution... it sidesteps it.

Nothing in politics is temporary. Nothing.

PS: I CHANGED MY EARLIER POST TO REFLECT WHAT I WAS THINKING (brain malfunction)

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I agree with Wadi.

The thing that makes this country great is the fact that we the people are the government, through the Senate.

As such, I think it would be a bad idea for GW to do that, and I definately wouldn't support it.

One would hope that the Republican Senators would trigger the nuke option or something to force a vote.

[owl_the_beatnik]

Since the Republican Party has some (7) nancy boys who will side w/ the liberals, the nuclear option is out. So they will go with the up or down vote. Could someone please tell when did the liberals win the Senate? Last time I checked the republicans had control and its up to them. Since I don't want the liberals and the nancy boys to decide, I say go ahaead W. and temporarily place Bolton in the U.N chair and let the nancy boys and liberals see how you control a corrupt system as the U.N.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Nah, Dude.

Circumventing the Senate sets a dangerous precident.

As far as the 7 Wusses are concerened, two things.

Do you consider the 7 Democrats that hooked up with them to be wusses?

The fact that the 7 wusses had the ability to do that is a good thing.

It means that democracy is alive and well. Fear the day that happens again, and they are arrested.

Personally I think the RNC is doing a good job putting the DNC's lunacy on display, this course they have charted portays the RNC as the even tempered, 'try all avenue's' type of people.

So when they do kill the dems, the people will be behind them.

[owl_the_beatnik]

Why should we concave to the liberals?

-who control the senate?
-who controls the house?
-who is in the white house?
THE REPUBLICANS


The liberals don't believe the conservatives control anything and the elections where a flaw. It's the first time in history the liberals have no power and no vote. The conservatives have all the stroke in D.C and don't need to play w/ the liberals. So the liberals start to cry i.e...Boxer... and these seven nancy boys feel sorry and go on to argee with the evil empire of liberals. Nuclear option is the right and legal way to get this done. We need to burn these nancy boys at the stake

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I just found out that this circumvention the owl is talking about is consititutional.

Here's an excerpt from MSN.com


By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 10:13 p.m. ET June 20, 2005WASHINGTON -

Tom Curry
National affairs writer


Now that the Senate has, for the second time in four weeks, voted to block an up-or-down vote on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, the president could use his power under Article Two, Section 2 of the Constitution to give Bolton a recess appointment to the job......

....The recess appointment power allows a president to sidestep the Senate when it decides to not vote on a nomination, as in Bolton’s case, or when it simply never gets around to considering a nomination.

Under the Constitution, the recess appointment is temporary, lasting only until the end of the session of Congress, in Bolton’s case, until December 2007.


Since George Washington, presidents have made more than 3,000 recess appointments to executive branch or judicial positions.


The justification for this power is that the very nature of the executive branch entails the ability to act. Arguably for some jobs the president can’t wait until members of Congress return to town from a recess or adjournment.

Ordinarily a president will use the power after Congress has adjourned for the year, usually in December.

But presidents have made 285 recess appointments during intra-session recesses, that is, during short breaks when Congress leaves the Capitol for a week or two.



Here's Article Two Section 2, I have highlighted what I believe is being referenced.


The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XIV, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.


Given all that, I think I might revise my position on it's application.

[Wadi66]

WAA I wouldn’t capitulate so quickly.

Article II Section 2.2 “….and he (the President) shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, ambassadors…..”

Article II Section 2.3 “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

The power to appoint without senate approval is #1 not intended to be a political hammer and #2 for vacancies which occur during the recess.

Using that power in a manner not prescribed or authorized by the Constitution places our democratic process in jeopardy. It sets a dangerous precedence. Do you believe for one minute that the Liberals won’t use that to their advantage when its their turn? If a Democratic President at any time nominated an individual whose past performance and/or political views were detrimental to the USA, and Republicans opposed the nomination, I promise you, Liberals will use the Bolton example as justification to do the same.

Regardless whether you’re pro or anti Bush, sidestepping the senate nullifies one of the senate’s protective powers and renders unto the Executive branch more powers than the Founding Fathers thought desirable. It can and it will lead to a totalitarian form of government.

PS: The Constitution is not to be liberally interpretated. Its verbage is exact for a reason.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Well, it's been applied over 3000 times since Washington, so I'd say precident has been set.

Look, I see the logic behind the action. I would hope that the republicans would go nuclear, but as owl pointed out, there are 7 less Republicans that would back it, and that effectively takes the teeth out of the anything the Republicans do.

As such, with July 4th fast approaching, the Senate will be in recess, and that would be the ideal time to do so.

Bush did this in his first term, and Clinton did a few times too.

[chi1088]

WAA actually sounds good here. You know what I'd think if Bush appointed Bolton temporarily. I'd think the same way Wadi and WAA are.

[owl_the_beatnik]

Actually the Senate legally can't stall the vote on Bolton. McCain and the other nancy boys made a deal w/ the Democrats in the judge fillabuster fiasco, that If the democrats get their way with the judges, then they can't stall on the Bolton vote. But look at what happen when you shake hands with the devil, nancy boys.

[owl_the_beatnik]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8303395/


WASHINGTON - Reversing course after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John Bolton for U.N. ambassador. Frist switched his position after initially saying that negotiations with Democrats to get a vote on Bolton had been exhausted.