American Political Process Question

Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8

Asylum Forums > Políticás der Monde > American Political Process Question

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

American Political Process Question

When someone is "nominated" for a Cabinet position (such as Secrtary of State for Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security etc), is that "nomination" other than a formality? What I mean is, does anyone have the power (constitutionally speaking) to stop that nominee from getting the job, or are "rejections" just down to politiking and media pressure i.e. the nomination is withdrawn rather it actually being formally rejected? Also, are there are rules on nepotism? (I'm thinking here of Bobby Kennedy)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-11-2004 07:49 AM

Click here to Send philjit a Private Message

[P]

Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Wikipedia:

quote:

The 15 Cabinet Secretaries are chosen by the President, and approved by the United States Senate by simple majority vote. Cabinet Secretaries are often selected from past and current American governors, senators, representatives, and other political office holders. Because of the strong system of separation of powers, however, no cabinet member can simultaneously hold an office in the legislative or judicial branches of government while serving in cabinet, nor can they hold office in state government. Private citizens such as businessmen or former military officials are also common cabinet choices. Unlike the parliamentary system of government, cabinet members are rarely "shuffled" and it is rare for a Secretary to be moved from one department to another. Some exceptions apply. For example, current Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has previously served as Secretary of Commerce. A slightly more common occurance is for popular cabinet secretaries to be "brought back" to serve a second term under a new president. For example current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held his position once before, under President Gerald Ford from 1975-1977.

Unlike many Cabinets in parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister is said to be "first among equals", the officials in the United States Cabinet are strongly subordinate to the President. In addition, the United States Cabinet does not play a collective legislative role as do the Cabinets in parliamentary systems. The main interaction that cabinet members have with the legislative branch are regular testimonials before Congressional committees to justify their actions, and co-ordinate executive and legislative policy in their respective fields of jurisdiction.

Cabinet members can be fired by the President, or impeached by the Congress. Customarily, a few Cabinet members may resign before the beginning of a second Presidential term. Usually all Cabinet members resign shortly after the inauguration of a new President. Rarely, a popular or especially dedicated Cabinet member may be asked to stay, sometimes even serving under a new President of another party.

No rules regarding nepotism that I'm aware of. And yes, cabinet secretaries, like federal court justices, have to be approved by Congress (simple majority though), and sometimes (maybe 10-20% of the time) Congress fights back pretty hard on a particular guy, and if the guy is particularly odious (as in Ashcroft's nomination), will go pretty far in airing dirty laundry about the guy and drilling him in confirmation hearings.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-11-2004 08:01 AM

Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message

[P]

Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

quote:
Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
and if the guy is particularly odious (as in Ashcroft's nomination), will go pretty far in airing dirty laundry about the guy and drilling him in confirmation hearings.

I'll rephrase that. Usually Congress defers pretty largely to the president (the thinking being "It's his cabinet, let him pick who he wants to") so most often members of the opposition and whoever will vote for whoever the President appoints, even if they don't particularly like him or her (because they're not voting on who THEIR cabinet will be, but who the current president wants for his). However, out of every batch of 15 there's usually one that rubs the opposition party the wrong way and they'll give him a pretty hard time in the nomination process. I'm not sure who the last cabinet appointment that failed to pass Congressional muster was, though.

It's also important to remember that the cabinet represents the line of succession of who becomes president in the cast that the current pres and vice pres are killed or rendered incapacitated.

Now that I think about it, I'm positive there are no rules of nepotism. You can appoint your whole family if you like, theoretically, though again it has to pass through Congress. The only mention of the cabinet in the Constitution (which is pretty mum on the subject) is Article Two which provides that the President can require "the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices." The 25th Amendment provides that the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the departments can transmit a notice that the President is unfit for office, and is also where the line of succession (I believe) is extended through the cabinet (though on that I could be wrong).

More from Wikipedia:

quote:

Significance

In recent years, the Cabinet has generally declined in relevance as a policy making body. Starting with President Franklin Roosevelt, the trend has been for Presidents to act through the Executive Office of the President rather than through the Cabinet. This has created a situation in which non-Cabinet officials such as the White House Chief of Staff, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Advisor have power as large or larger than some Cabinet officials.

Traditionally the most powerful and relevant cabinet members are the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General. All four are included as members of the National Security Council.

Line of succession

The Cabinet is also important in the presidential line of succession, which determines an order in which Cabinet officers succeed to the office of the president following the death or resignation of the Vice President, Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Because of this, it is common practice not to have the entire cabinet in one location, even for ceremonial occasions like the State of the Union Address, where at least one Cabinet member does not attend. This person is the designated survivor, and they are held at a secure, undisclosed location ready to take over if the President, Vice President and the rest of the Cabinet is killed.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-11-2004 08:10 AM

[P]

philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

k.

note to self: use Wikipedia more often

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-11-2004 08:10 AM

[P]

Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

Wikipedia kicks ass, man.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-11-2004 08:11 AM

[P]

greenleakynipples
What a cock

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1574

As far as Congressional objections/blocking of nominees, the last big fight I can thinking of was Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. Clinton nominated Baird for Attorney General, and they found out she'd hired illegal immigrants for housekeepers or nannies or something, but had paid them crap and not paid employee taxes on them. So she had to withdraw her nomination. Then, embarressingly enough, Clinton's second nominee for the AG post, Wood, had to withdraw her nomination for practically the same reason. Now that I think about it (and google it) Bush nominated Linda Chavez for Labor Secretary in his first term, and she had to resign for the same reason. Now Kerik, the Homeland Security nominee is out for illegal immigrant worker issue, too. Damn, lots of wetback labor, apparently.

I remember Clarence Thomas caught a lot of shit during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court because this lady, Anita Hill, charged that he'd sexually harrassed her. I'm not sure whether he did or not, or if he was tried for it, but I know he made it through the confirmation hearing.

Like Paint said, it's kind of hard for the opposition to justify being too harsh on the President's cabinet... it's his executive, after all. I suspect that the opposition gives one nominee a hard time every nomination cycle, just to make the statement that they're not going to be complete bitches, and also to kind of keep the executive in check for future nominees. If the President knows that the opposition will latch on to weaknesses they find, he'll try to nominate strong candidates.

OK.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-12-2004 05:38 PM