My Turn: Balancing presidential power
The continuing controversy over presidential appointments underscores the pivotal role of the U.S. Senate in its Constitutional duty to give “advice and consent” to the president on such appointments.
Unfortunately, much of the debate and discussion swirling about this controversy demonstrates a profound misunderstanding, or worse, a deliberately misleading characterization, of the Senate’s legitimate role in confirming or rejecting the president’s choices for high-level Executive Branch appointments and for the federal judiciary.
First, it is important to understand that the current controversy is not just about personalities, prickly though they may be. It is mostly about power. More precisely, it is about the balance of power between the president and the Senate.
Our Constitutional framers went to great lengths to avoid concentration of power that might lead to tyranny. Assigning the power of “advice and consent” to the Senate was one of the many ways they tried to diffuse power on matters of great importance to the nation.
Actually, the president usually gets his way on most appointments, as I believe he should. However, when his choice is unusually controversial, tension between the president and the Senate is inevitable.
Second, the Senate was never intended to be a body of raw majority rule. Instead, the clear intent of the framers was insulate the Senate from the whims and passions of the day. Senators could then discuss and debate great issues, without undue fear of immediate reprisal from their constituents.
Third, the Senate’s sole power to “advise and consent” on presidential appointments, and on treaties, distinguishes it from the House. Advice and consent require discussion and debate.
Obviously, the Senate has not always exercised its unique powers wisely and well. Still, I believe it should remain what its framers intended: a cooler of populist passions, and an active player in presidential appointments that require reasoned advice and consent.
With proper leadership from both parties, the Senate can and should “advise and consent,” not just rubber-stamp or filibuster on presidential appointees.
(Thomas B. Vaughn is a professor at Motlow College and co-host of the radio show “Viewpoints” which airs on 91.3 FM WCPI.)