S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (On Passage of the Bill)

Well- the senate passed this bill and I dont think anyone noticed, I know I didnt until I was reading through the bills that were being rushed through to the senate within the weeks time.
(this bill was passed in the Senate last month on the 29th),

Here is a list of WHO voted for this bill and who Nayed it(look at the bottom)
www.govtrack.us...

Sad part is- not many opposed it.

We now have a President who can make his own appointments without their consent or opinions(if it passes the house). The President will be allowed to nominate anyone he wants.

This is a massive grab at power, yet nobody seems to be screaming about it...WHY NOT?

Here is what the bill dictates- there is 6 sections in the official summary(on bottom of page)
www.govtrack.us...

There was a similar thread on this last year here on ATS when this bill was being introduced-www.abovetopsecret.com...

What chance do you guys think this will pass the House then going on to be signed by the President?

-Another thing I can not find out(Is when the house is expected to vote for it).

If this isnt political madness- I dont know what is.

reply to post by Common Good


Looks like a clear violation of the appointments clause;

Article 2, section 2, clause 2

[The President] 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.

The reaon being given for this seems to be that background checks take a lot of time, but this is an absurd solution. The framers obsiously wanted the Senate to have to approve these appointees to stop one man from having so much power.

Wasn't it the dems claiming that Bush had too much power? Now they are fighting to give the executive more power.

Oh well. At least it will give Mr. Transparency Obama the chance to use his Executive Privilege to hide even more from the people now that he'll have more lackeys in positions of power.

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by Common Good

 

Looks like a clear violation of the appointments clause;

Article 2, section 2, clause 2

[The President] 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.

The reaon being given for this seems to be that background checks take a lot of time, but this is an absurd solution. The framers obsiously wanted the Senate to have to approve these appointees to stop one man from having so much power.

Wasn't it the dems claiming that Bush had too much power? Now they are fighting to give the executive more power.

Oh well. At least it will give Mr. Transparency Obama the chance to use his Executive Privilege to hide even more from the people now that he'll have more lackeys in positions of power.

I believe you are correct in your accessment. They are using lame duck excuses such as "time and energy", when they obviously have both.

Look at all of those appointments that the President can put into position without objection.

This is scary. What is happening to my country besides the obvious corruption? Where is the outrage?

WOW. And I thought one of the most scariest bills written would get more ATS attention.

That makes me sad.

I guess we will just wait to get all up in arms over this when it does pass.