To err is human but to really screw things up, you need the United States Senate. A really horrible bill is in front of the United States Senate today and we need to call our Senators to make sure this bill gets killed.
S. 679 is called the “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.” It will reduce the number of Presidential appointments that require confirmation from the Senate.
Our founding fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, feared the accumulation of power. So they put a series of checks and balances in place. One of them was the President could appoint top officials, but that appointment could only take place with the advice and consent of the Senate. The appointments clause of the Constitution states that 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 problem the Senate has is they think the process is too slow. So, instead of speeding up the process themselves or compelling the Executive Branch to speed up the process, they simply want to abdicate their role. Liberals don’t like that whole Constitutional thing anyway and think a liberal President can do no wrong. Republicans are too busy being codependent, wanting liberals to like them and making sure they can be on time to their next trendy Washington cocktail party.
This bill currently has 17 cosponsors. They are the usual suspects, including:
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 3/30/2011
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 6/21/2011
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 3/30/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 3/30/2011
Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] - 3/30/2011
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 3/30/2011
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 3/30/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 3/30/2011
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] - 3/30/2011
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 3/30/2011
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 3/30/2011
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 3/30/2011
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 3/30/2011
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 6/21/2011
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 3/30/2011
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 3/30/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 3/30/2011
(the dates are when the Senator became a co-sponsor)
Why any Republican signed on to this bill is beyond comprehension.
The bill is scheduled for a hearing this week, though the exact details of that are still sketchy. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/168739-tuesday-attorne...
This is a bill that needs to die. Call your Senators today and tell them to vote against cloture on S.679. Under the filibuster rules, the bill will need 60 votes to advance. If we can get 41 Republicans on board, this bill will die.
Liberty and freedom are chipped away, one small piece at a time. This is one piece we need to make sure is not chipped away. Call your Senators today.
Tags: 679, advice, and, appointment, consent, obama, presidential, s., senate
They don't even hide the fact they are out to destroy the US while they allow the criminal element to stay in office. The supreme court has defined a Natural born citizen and yet even they won't act.
Supreme Court finding in
Minor V. Happersett (1874)
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on OK, I will explain what is going on in Congress: They are transferring their constitutional duties and powers to the President (e.g., the so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment", this bill) so that they will have more time to feather their own nests and to lord it over us. They also want to shirk responsibility: it's not my fault - he did it.
And yes! They want to be liked. Can't we find some he-men & she-women to replace this sorry bunch of bland, weak, cowardly, irresponsible RINOS?
Permalink Reply by Dave Newbry on 
Permalink Reply by AMother in America on Permalink Reply by Thomas Nunn on Senator Alexander:
If you're not interested is doing the job you were elected for, I'd suggest you resign and allow someone to replace you that will do the job.
I'm referring to the S.679 bill, of which you are a co-sponsor, allowing the president to make appointments to positions in Government without any oversight by the Senate.
This bill would defeat the basic foundation of the Constitution, that is a "Check and balance" on all three branches of Government by the other two branches.
Obama is already taking liberties not given to him by the Constitution, if the Constitution is not defended in the Halls of Congress then it will have to be defended in the streets.
I'd strongly suggest you keep the fight in the halls of Congress.
I don't think the straw that breaks the camel's back is very far down the road, and it's because of bills like this and people like you undermining the foundation of the Constitution.
Thank you.
Permalink Reply by Richard Curtis on Most importantly,,why would one branch of Government calmly give up powers given to them by the Constitution?? It has happened several times in the past,,and I just dont understand how it can happen so easily, but then I am just one of the great unwashed in the heartland.
Semper Fi
Permalink Reply by Carl Hall on Here are my results , as posted in another political forum I spend a lot of time at:
I spent the morning calling my Representatives, then everyone I knew elsewhere who would have different Senators and begging them to call about this important bill.
They are scheduled to vote on this TODAY!
As part of my explanation I said "if this passes, the next Supreme Court opening, the President does not have to have the nominee interviewed and approved by the Senate, he would just appoint whoever he liked. The people should have a say in who goes on the Supreme court, right? So this bill, S-679 should be stopped."
I am discouraged because not one person whom I called said they would call their rep. All I got were excuses. Fourteen people who I thought gave a da MM about this country, don't care that part of Article 2 of the Constitution is being eliminated....madness in the Senate to give up power!
The peoples apathy makes me wonder if this country has already gone too far down the road
Permalink Reply by Zbigniew Mazurak on Permalink Reply by dave williams on Permalink Reply by James N Haynes on How did this bill pass the House? I thought that all bills had to originate in the peoples House then go to the Senate.
Jim
Permalink Reply by Jay Datchko on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
