Senate to Consider Bill Allowing Obama-Packing Scheme

[middlefinger]

Liberty Alerts, Gun Owners of America

Shortly, the U.S. Senate will consider legislation to take a number of key gun-related offices in the Department of Justice and remove them from the requirement of Senate confirmation. The legislation is sponsored by anti-gun zealot Charles Schumer (D-NY) and weak-kneed Republican Lamar Alexander (R-TN).

S. 679 would give Barack Obama the ability to fill major gun-related Department of Justice slots with anti-gun partisans, without the pesky inconvenience of having to comply with the Constitution’s requirements for Senate confirmation.

Consider the following:

Barack Obama has not hesitated to load up his administration with anti-gun crazies like Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein (who thinks hunters should be sued in court because of the pain and suffering they inflict upon animals) and Andrew Traver (the nominee to head the ATF who never met a gun control proposal he didn’t like).

If he has been willing to pack his administration with anti-gun extremists — many of whom had to pass Senate confirmation — imagine what kind of lunatics Obama could nominate if the Schumer-Alexander legislation exempted major positions from constitutional advise-and-consent requirements.

To take posts like the official who composes statistics for the Justice Department (the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics) and the person who represents the Justice Department before Congress (Assistant Attorney General, Legislative Affairs) and turn them into “Political hack” positions is unacceptable.

ACTION: Contact your Senators. Urge them to filibuster S. 679, the Schumer-Alexander bill to exempt Justice Department gun-related posts from the Constitution’s advise-and-consent requirements.

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/...acking-scheme/

[ChamberedRound]

I know this hasn't stopped legislators in the past, but how is this even constitutional? Isn't Senate confirmation of appointees a constitutional requirement?

[YosemiteSam]

I know this hasn't stopped legislators in the past, but how is this even constitutional? Isn't Senate confirmation of appointees a constitutional requirement?

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[twoguns]

I know this hasn't stopped legislators in the past, but how is this even constitutional? Isn't Senate confirmation of appointees a constitutional requirement?

When has the Constitution ever gotten in the way of legislation to abrogate the rule of law?

This is an attempt to ram this through before the next election....and some on this very forum claim that Obama is not doing anything to limit your RTKBA.

[eXceLon]

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Bolded the relevant portion. Congress gets to decide which appointed positions are important enough to require congressional approval.

Personally I'd rather see the process reformed (eliminate secret holds) rather than having congress punt on the issue entirely.

[phillykev]

Here's the full text. I don't see any really top level department head positions here.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s112-679

Personally, I think they should just get rid of most of these positions and their departments. But I don't see any that are high level enough to warrant congressional hearings. Though I just did a quick scan.