Saturday, December 11, 2004
Senate Set to Confirm Alberto Gonzales
Some of my left-leaning friends are urging me to take up arms (actually, fingers or pen) and write or type letters to my Senators, urging them to stop the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. I'm sorry, but it's a lost cause. He will be confirmed. The cause was lost last November when Mr. Bush was reelected.
All of this leads to some thoughts about the process of confirming Presidential appointees, retifying solemn treaties, and other powers and duties of our Senate. The Constitution requires a super-majority of two-thirds to retify a treaty. Treaties stand between the Constitution itself and ordinary laws enacted by majorities in Congress. A treaty trumps a law. The only thing higher or more potent than a treaty is the Constitution.
Presidential appointees are confirmed by a majority vote (51 of 100) in the Senate. These appointees include cabinet officers who serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be dismissed at any time if the President so decides.
Justices of the Supreme Court are also confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. These appointees serve for life and can not be dismissed by the President. They can be removed from office only by impeachment and conviction. As with the President, it requires a majority vote in the House to impeach and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. The Constitution is whatever the current majority on the Supreme Court says it is. To me it is anomalous and illogical and wrong that a simple majority can confirm a Justice but a two-thirds majority is required to ratify a treaty or to remove a Justice.
The Senate has tried to get around this anomaly by using the filibuster to block the confirmation of certain Justices. It takes a three-fifths vote to end the filibuster and allow a confirmation vote. It seems to me that a constitutional amendment is in order to require a two-thirds vote on confirming Supreme Court appointments.
All of this leads to some thoughts about the process of confirming Presidential appointees, retifying solemn treaties, and other powers and duties of our Senate. The Constitution requires a super-majority of two-thirds to retify a treaty. Treaties stand between the Constitution itself and ordinary laws enacted by majorities in Congress. A treaty trumps a law. The only thing higher or more potent than a treaty is the Constitution.
Presidential appointees are confirmed by a majority vote (51 of 100) in the Senate. These appointees include cabinet officers who serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be dismissed at any time if the President so decides.
Justices of the Supreme Court are also confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. These appointees serve for life and can not be dismissed by the President. They can be removed from office only by impeachment and conviction. As with the President, it requires a majority vote in the House to impeach and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. The Constitution is whatever the current majority on the Supreme Court says it is. To me it is anomalous and illogical and wrong that a simple majority can confirm a Justice but a two-thirds majority is required to ratify a treaty or to remove a Justice.
The Senate has tried to get around this anomaly by using the filibuster to block the confirmation of certain Justices. It takes a three-fifths vote to end the filibuster and allow a confirmation vote. It seems to me that a constitutional amendment is in order to require a two-thirds vote on confirming Supreme Court appointments.
