Tomorrow Is D-Day For The GOP
Tomorrow is the deadline day for the Senate GOP. Sens. Frist, Santorum, and Kyl havew all stated that tomorrow, Wednesday, May 18, 2005 is the day they will call for an end to the unconstitutional filibusters being threatened by—and carried out by—the Democrats. They filibustered these jurists in the president’s last term, and they’ve threatened such action this time around.
Last minute negotiations have fallen through to avert the head-on collision between the two parties in tomorrow’s Senate proceedings. And it all depends on how quickly Frist wants to move. The schedule tomorrow should start with the Bolton nomination, then the nominees to the federal bench. It has been threatened by the Democrats—in addition to the filibuster—that if the Chair recognizes no merit in their attempted filibuster, that they [the Democrats] will shut down the business of the Senate. One would guess that this act is accomplished by leaving the chambers; one could only hope.
And I dare them to do so.
Not the wisest or smartest thing to do heading into an election cycle, but if the Democrats would like to slice their own political throats, who are we to stop them? Let them. Sure, you can shut down the Senate for any business other than to that relating to the GWOT, but what about the rest of the legislation? What about the representatives we elected to act as our voice on a national level? If the Senate is shut down, that voice is absent in the grand scheme of things; it does still take TWO Houses of Congress to pass legislation.
The Democrats are up against the wall as hard as the Republicans are. Reid is forced to hold his position against these nominees, and Frist is forced to put up or shut up. Neither will be worth a lick of salt should they cave, and they stand much to gain for holding true to where they stand. But that is where I have a problem, and it lies within the party.
Day by day that this issue drags on, more of the GOP sound off about wanting to desert the party over the Constitutional Option. They’re not be smart, or "mavericks", or even being "bold". They’re being plain ignorant to the inner workings of the checks and balances within the Constitution. How many more times must it be stated that "advice and consent" is explicit in it’s meaning?
The president’s power to nominate is clearly defined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution: "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. "
He nominates, the Senate grants "advice" within committee, and should nominees pass the committee, they head to the floor of the Senate for "consent", or otherwise. (The otherwise, of course, is a vote against). This is not rocket-science here, and the Democrats are treating such a requested vote as an egregious offense. For crying out loud it’s what we’ve abided by for 229 years; why suddenly change the meaning of what the Constitution means? It makes no sense.
The ability of the president to nominate is checked with this action granted to the Senate of "advice and consent". If the Senate—a representation of the nation—feels that the nominee isn’t worth approval, then kill them in committee or on the floor of the Senate. You don’t have the ability to filibuster them on the floor of the Senate; they aren’t legislation. It is inherent under the above cited entry from the Constitution that a simple majority is needed to confirm nominees.
Why do I say that? HOW could I say that? Simple. It isn’t listed in the Constitution as one of the instances required for a supermajority; that is a majority requiring more than a 51 vote majority. A simple majority is all that is needed, and that is what Frist is standing firm for.
For 229 years, this nation has either approved a president’s nominees—based on their merits and accomplishments—or voted them down. Now, the minority party in the Senate is extending to itself powers not bestowed to it. There is no right to filibuster on ANY nominees. And for the Democrats, and their RINO cronies to parrot such simply shows how Constitutionally illiterate and inept they really are.
Publius II
Tomorrow is the deadline day for the Senate GOP. Sens. Frist, Santorum, and Kyl havew all stated that tomorrow, Wednesday, May 18, 2005 is the day they will call for an end to the unconstitutional filibusters being threatened by—and carried out by—the Democrats. They filibustered these jurists in the president’s last term, and they’ve threatened such action this time around.
Last minute negotiations have fallen through to avert the head-on collision between the two parties in tomorrow’s Senate proceedings. And it all depends on how quickly Frist wants to move. The schedule tomorrow should start with the Bolton nomination, then the nominees to the federal bench. It has been threatened by the Democrats—in addition to the filibuster—that if the Chair recognizes no merit in their attempted filibuster, that they [the Democrats] will shut down the business of the Senate. One would guess that this act is accomplished by leaving the chambers; one could only hope.
And I dare them to do so.
Not the wisest or smartest thing to do heading into an election cycle, but if the Democrats would like to slice their own political throats, who are we to stop them? Let them. Sure, you can shut down the Senate for any business other than to that relating to the GWOT, but what about the rest of the legislation? What about the representatives we elected to act as our voice on a national level? If the Senate is shut down, that voice is absent in the grand scheme of things; it does still take TWO Houses of Congress to pass legislation.
The Democrats are up against the wall as hard as the Republicans are. Reid is forced to hold his position against these nominees, and Frist is forced to put up or shut up. Neither will be worth a lick of salt should they cave, and they stand much to gain for holding true to where they stand. But that is where I have a problem, and it lies within the party.
Day by day that this issue drags on, more of the GOP sound off about wanting to desert the party over the Constitutional Option. They’re not be smart, or "mavericks", or even being "bold". They’re being plain ignorant to the inner workings of the checks and balances within the Constitution. How many more times must it be stated that "advice and consent" is explicit in it’s meaning?
The president’s power to nominate is clearly defined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution: "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. "
He nominates, the Senate grants "advice" within committee, and should nominees pass the committee, they head to the floor of the Senate for "consent", or otherwise. (The otherwise, of course, is a vote against). This is not rocket-science here, and the Democrats are treating such a requested vote as an egregious offense. For crying out loud it’s what we’ve abided by for 229 years; why suddenly change the meaning of what the Constitution means? It makes no sense.
The ability of the president to nominate is checked with this action granted to the Senate of "advice and consent". If the Senate—a representation of the nation—feels that the nominee isn’t worth approval, then kill them in committee or on the floor of the Senate. You don’t have the ability to filibuster them on the floor of the Senate; they aren’t legislation. It is inherent under the above cited entry from the Constitution that a simple majority is needed to confirm nominees.
Why do I say that? HOW could I say that? Simple. It isn’t listed in the Constitution as one of the instances required for a supermajority; that is a majority requiring more than a 51 vote majority. A simple majority is all that is needed, and that is what Frist is standing firm for.
For 229 years, this nation has either approved a president’s nominees—based on their merits and accomplishments—or voted them down. Now, the minority party in the Senate is extending to itself powers not bestowed to it. There is no right to filibuster on ANY nominees. And for the Democrats, and their RINO cronies to parrot such simply shows how Constitutionally illiterate and inept they really are.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:45 PM
2 Comments:
Here's a link to get you or your readers started on filibuster coverage.
http://lesenfantterrible.blogspot.com/2005/05/get-your-filibuster-fix-here-today.html
Oh...it's on.
Pat,
I REALLY wish the vote had gone down today, but it seems we will be carrying this over to next week.
At least the process is starting. Frist has to hold true. At this point there is no turning back for him.
I saw some of the coverage today on the floor of the Senate. Reid invoked a supposed conversation between Jefferson and Washington. This is hard to believe as they were political rivals. More so, Reid said they had coffee.
Coffee? In the late 1700's? Right. Has Reid heard of "tea"?
Reid and the Democrats are grasping at starwas, but their comments today on the floor of the Senate remind me of an old adage I remember from childhood: "Always plant a seed of truth within a lie; it makes it easier to swallow."
Marcie
Post a Comment
<< Home