5 ms·

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009

by 300bps 12y ago

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party [2]. To say that he hasn't gotten his way on the vast majority of cabinet appointments just isn't true. Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. [3] All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve. Your comment is typical of the current rhetoric surrounding attempting to "debunk" the thought that the President has substantial power. The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_State... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_State...

king_jester 12y ago
At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals. EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.
- 300bps 12y ago
  They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
  - noobermin 12y ago
    Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history. This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations. To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?ref=politics http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
    - Amezarak 12y ago
      It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill. These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.
  - owenmarshall 12y ago
    > Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. Which lead to Republican senators using another procedural technique (refusing unanimous consent) to slow down appointments.[1] This means appointments were delayed for days, and even weeks, after which time the same obstructing senators often voted for the appointee anyways. It's disingenuous to claim that appointments would go through scot free after Reid altered Senate procedures. 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-reform-obama-nominees_n_5358863.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-r...
revscat 12y ago
> But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. This is irrelevant, since the minority party can filibuster any nominations, and they have used done so extensively throughout Obama's tenure. In this regard, the party with the majority simply does not matter. > The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. Again, I believe that this is an overly simplistic view of the Presidency. There are political realities around what Presidents can and cannot realistically do that contradict the "ultimate power" view of the Executive branch. > All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve. With Senate approval, and where no filibusters have been threatened or executed. And remember, there have been more filibusters during Obama's tenure than at any other time in history. > The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with. Not at all. I am disappointed in the American government itself. I have never voted for Obama, and am merely stating my thoughts as an amateur observer. But if there is ever going to be any positive change in limiting Federal power viz. the military, intelligence agencies, or LEO, then clarity of causality is important.
techsupporter 12y ago
> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. No, he doesn't. The Constitution specifically limits the President's ability to make war and wage military campaigns. He has a great deal of authority but even the US' current adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are backed by Congress' approval through passed laws. > At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively. This displays a lack of insight around the Democratic party. Senator Lieberman was nominally a Democrat but he voted more often with the Republicans in the last few years of his career in the Senate. So-called "blue dog Democrats" are more conservative than you might think; that's why we got such grand bargains as the "Cornhusker Kickback" during the PPACA debates. In reality, the President's party firmly controlled roughly 51-54 votes in the Senate with the remainder of the "majority" part of the coalition as a result of them simply not being as good a fit with the Republicans. That has arguably been one of the Democrats' greatest weaknesses: the Republican party has demonstrated its ability to move in lockstep even when some members disagree. The Democrats have not.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  Absolutely none of this has any bearing on whether President Obama could call the NSA director into his office today and order him end all mass surveillance programs. Which he could, and his order would be obeyed. That he chooses not to is a practical political issue, not a legal one. [EDIT: Well, he couldn't literally call anyone into the Oval Office today, since he's in Beijing, but a phone call would work just as well.]
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    Ordering an end to all mass surveillance programs would require Congressional approval.
    - twoodfin 12y ago
      Why?
altcognito 12y ago
> And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party They are reviled because they spend a lot of time demonizing them because this is politics.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. No, he doesn't. The Congress has quite expansive (nearly plenary) power over the military (and to a lesser extent, the militia) expressly in the Constitution. The one limit on that power in the Constitution is that the Congress can't adopt a law giving the supreme command of the military (or the militia, when called into federal service) under the rules they adopt to anyone but the President -- that's what the designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief means.

by 300bps 12y ago

king_jester 12y ago

At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee approvals. EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even possible for Democrats.

300bps 12y ago
They had 58 votes in 2009 which was darned close and they only needed one Republican to switch sides to stop a filibuster. Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limi...
- noobermin 12y ago
  Ironically, the fact they changed the rules speaks against your claim that Obama could easily instate who he wanted. In fact, from the article you posted, it gives a graph that shows that more filibusters have been filed in the previous three senates than have been in recent history. This [1] shows a breakdown that includes filibusters of nominations. To further refute your point, the appointment relevant to the discussion, Wheeler, assumed office after the rule change[2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?ref=politics http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/se... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    It's not just filibusters, even. Senators can also issue "secret" holds. At one point, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) put a hold on every single nominee simultaneously until some pork was added to a defense spending bill. These holds have been common practice and they are very rarely publicized.
- owenmarshall 12y ago
  > Other than that, I guess you don't follow the news much. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules in 2013 to disallow filibusters of appointments. Which lead to Republican senators using another procedural technique (refusing unanimous consent) to slow down appointments.[1] This means appointments were delayed for days, and even weeks, after which time the same obstructing senators often voted for the appointee anyways. It's disingenuous to claim that appointments would go through scot free after Reid altered Senate procedures. 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-reform-obama-nominees_n_5358863.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/senate-filibuster-r...

revscat 12y ago

> But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. This is irrelevant, since the minority party can filibuster any nominations, and they have used done so extensively throughout Obama's tenure. In this regard, the party with the majority simply does not matter. > The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. Again, I believe that this is an overly simplistic view of the Presidency. There are political realities around what Presidents can and cannot realistically do that contradict the "ultimate power" view of the Executive branch. > All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve. With Senate approval, and where no filibusters have been threatened or executed. And remember, there have been more filibusters during Obama's tenure than at any other time in history. > The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with. Not at all. I am disappointed in the American government itself. I have never voted for Obama, and am merely stating my thoughts as an amateur observer. But if there is ever going to be any positive change in limiting Federal power viz. the military, intelligence agencies, or LEO, then clarity of causality is important.

techsupporter 12y ago

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. No, he doesn't. The Constitution specifically limits the President's ability to make war and wage military campaigns. He has a great deal of authority but even the US' current adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are backed by Congress' approval through passed laws. > At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively. This displays a lack of insight around the Democratic party. Senator Lieberman was nominally a Democrat but he voted more often with the Republicans in the last few years of his career in the Senate. So-called "blue dog Democrats" are more conservative than you might think; that's why we got such grand bargains as the "Cornhusker Kickback" during the PPACA debates. In reality, the President's party firmly controlled roughly 51-54 votes in the Senate with the remainder of the "majority" part of the coalition as a result of them simply not being as good a fit with the Republicans. That has arguably been one of the Democrats' greatest weaknesses: the Republican party has demonstrated its ability to move in lockstep even when some members disagree. The Democrats have not.

twoodfin 12y ago
Absolutely none of this has any bearing on whether President Obama could call the NSA director into his office today and order him end all mass surveillance programs. Which he could, and his order would be obeyed. That he chooses not to is a practical political issue, not a legal one. [EDIT: Well, he couldn't literally call anyone into the Oval Office today, since he's in Beijing, but a phone call would work just as well.]
- Amezarak 12y ago
  Ordering an end to all mass surveillance programs would require Congressional approval.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    Why?

altcognito 12y ago

> And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party They are reviled because they spend a lot of time demonizing them because this is politics.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. No, he doesn't. The Congress has quite expansive (nearly plenary) power over the military (and to a lesser extent, the militia) expressly in the Constitution. The one limit on that power in the Constitution is that the Congress can't adopt a law giving the supreme command of the military (or the militia, when called into federal service) under the rules they adopt to anyone but the President -- that's what the designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief means.