By a lopsided vote, the U.S. Senate passed a measure rolling back a provision in the PATRIOT Act that gave the attorney general the ability to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.
The 94-2 vote came Tuesday afternoon. The bill now moves to the House.
The vote reflects a couple of things. One is anger from Republicans and Democrats alike over abuse of the Patriot Act provision. Another is Republicans running scared over 2008.
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said the Justice Department should be “above politics” and that it was the role of the attorney general to ensure that federal law enforcement officials were free of political influence.
“The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It should not be a political arm of the White House,” said Leahy.
Certainly, the flap over the U.S. attorneys played a part in this. Several weeks back, this bill couldn’t get out of committee, stopped by Senate Republicans. As much as “defenders of the faith” wish it weren’t so, a growing percentage of traditional Republican conservatives think they can take back their party.
“The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It should not be a political arm of the White House,” said Leahy.
So I’m confused, is it not expected anymore that the President is the one who is to enforce the law? After all, he’s the one entrusted with that job by the Constitution… the AG, like all executive officers, is just there because one man can’t do everything himself.
And really, how can you reasonably expect a political appointee to be “above politics”?
The Constitution provided that silly old item called “checks and balances”. I know it doesn’t matter to True Believers in the shrub; but, it’s nice to see the possibility of the return of that proviso in that not so distant future.
Of course if Congress did its job of creating the laws instead of blindly accepting legislation from the administration to pass, they wouldn’t have had to rescind it. Oh…and if you are going to accept legislation written by somebody else, it helps if you READ IT ALL before you vote on it.
#2, given that the AG’s office is a part of the “executive,” how can the executive qualify as a constitutional check against itself?
Still didn’t read the article, eh, Mike?
The bill passed returns Congressional approval over White House appointments in question. Obviously, 94 Senators understood the difference.
Traditional republican conservatives are taking back their party?
And I’m sure you’ll be cheering when they do so. No posts about their spending cuts, elimination of departments, etc?
“As much as “defenders of the faith” wish it weren’t so, a growing percentage of traditional Republican conservatives think they can take back their party.”
Puh-lease, all the neo cons have to do to retain their grip is yap that they’re going to make a homophobic law and this will force the Democrats to jump into the opposite side of the issue.
That is how Bush Jr. got reelected.
What’s the point? Bush will simply sign this bill with a signing statement that says “DOES NOT APPLY TO ME, NYAH NYAH!” We don’t live in a democracy any more, folks.
#5, yes, moss, I understand that quite well… but please explain to me where requiring Senate approval for political appointments has any bearing on firing those already appointed?
a growing percentage of traditional Republican conservatives think they can take back their party.
Revenge of the RINO’s?
I have NEVER liked that term, since it’s usually used by the same Neocons who have made the Right (of center, not of Hitler) and Conservatives look like the Communist Party.
J/P=?
You’re doing a hell of a job Gonzaly!
The Prez
#12 – Totally true… Hitler was extremely leftist. For those wishing to cast a hyperbolic shadow on the right with a devious historical figure, please use right winger Benito Mussolini.
(who is a much better analog for most neo-cons, frankly)
Hitler was a leftie like Bush is a Patriot. Especially in the Air National Guard.
It really is amazing to find people who never learned what
RoveGoebbels was all about. Some of you must believe that Cheer really is all-purpose, too.There is something very decisive when 94 of 96 Senators approve of something. That is more then enough for a veto over ride.
I wouldn’t look to the House holding up this legislation. Too many Republicans members are looking over their shoulders at how narrow their win was last time.
#1. The President =/ the entire executive branch, as you seem to claim, with lesser officers being only a fingers on the presidents hand. The Constitution, which created the Presidency, also provides for a “principal Officer in each of the executive Departments,” as well as “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls … and all other Officers of the United States,” Congress specifically has the power to govern how lower officials are appointed. Art 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 2.
Thus, lower officials in the Executive Branch have an independant constitutional and legal existance, which can be created and regulated by Congress, just like they are doing now.
The Unitary Executive, with the President as Godhead, is a neocon myth and has no basis in the US Constitution.
And YES I expect a political appointee US Attorney, or an elected State Attorney General, to administer justice without regard to party or favor. They do take an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed, which excludes partisan enforcement.
7 – Angel – Bush wasn’t reelected in 2004 any more than he was elected in 2000. The 2004 election theft (thank you, Ohio and Florida) just didn’t require a Republican Supreme Court to invalidate how people voted.
9 – Mike – Firing for political reasons or, worse, to derail a serious investigation and then lying about it is like going to war and lying about the reasons. And this proposed law has no bearing on firing, it just says Bush (or his agent the AG) can’t fire working US Attorneys and then appoint anyone he wants as their replacements. The Constitution says the Senate is supposed to advise and consent in the hiring process and congress throw that away when they passed the unPatriot Act without even taking the time to read it.
This does seem to me like a case of the Senate being shocked – shocked! – to discover it had given up some of its power. Politicians just hate that. For sure, it isn’t about correcting some of the serious offenses against the freedom of U.S. citizens that got included in the rest of that law.
#17
All It needed was the threat of forcing christians to treat gays & lesbians as equals.
#16.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Very first sentence of Article II, and it’s pretty clear.
The POTUS is the Executive, and any lower officers are no more independent of him than I am of my boss. Yes, the Constitution recognized that ambassadors and lower executive officers and departments might be necessary and grants the authority to Congress to create them as needed, and it can even set their rules as per Article I, Sec 8, because a.) the President doesn’t make laws, and b.)they are the only ones who can fund them. The reason for Senate approval of appointments is so he doesn’t just appoint idiots, family members and his buddies to unelected positions of governmental power without first gaining the consent of the people who are chosen by the people in their states to represent them.
But the Congress cannot create executive offices and departments, and grant them powers outside of those exclusively held by the President; because it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do so.
And it’s funny, the Congress is not expected to be above politics, the President (who takes an oath to enforce the law) is not expected to be above politics, but the people he appoints to lower executive offices and take the exact same oath he does are, in your mind, expected to be blind to them. There is absolutely no logic in that line of reasoning.
So, I guess this means if you want to fire someone, you have to get Senate approval? What I wouldn’t give to be a post office employee…
Politicians in the US are absolute nuts. As they are all over Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Australia, Canada, Middle East…
When did everyone get so p*ssed off?
Where’s Bill Clinton when you need him? Oh yeah, with the Intern in his study.
Mike, I don’t understand your point, especially in #19.
The President is to uphold the law. The Congress has oversight over ALL aspects of the Executive. The Congress is correcting an error that removed some of their oversight.
So what is the issue?
#21, the point is that all the hoopla about this bill is exaggerated since it has no direct effect on the President firing any of his appointees, as that is his prerogative. All it really does is send the message that “if you are going to go firing people, we are no longer going to waive our authority to disapprove your desired replacement.”
I’m also amused by all you clowns who are crying that the AG, or any other political appointee of the President, is somehow magically held to some higher apolitical standard than the President himself.
#19 “But the Congress cannot create executive offices and departments, and grant them powers outside of those exclusively held by the President; because it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do so.”
Oh, sure it can. do you think that Bush controlls interest rates, or does the Fed?