One Hundred and Forty. That is the number of recess appointments made by President Clinton during his two terms in the oval office. I have no recollection of anyone, Democrat or Republican, screaming that it was an abuse of power. Yet, when our current President uses the Constitution to direct his actions, he is accused of “a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent” [Kennedy] and that this is “the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House” [Reid].
This kind of grandstanding disgusts me. I am growing weary of the continued antics of some extremists in the Democratic Party who throw words around like they actually mean something. Unfortunately, their arguement doesn’t hold water according to the Constitution. It seems to me that often times the rhetoric is based on the fact that a lot of people in America are either too lazy to read the Constitution for themselves, or simply uneducated, or a combination of both.
In this age of the Internet, there is simply no excuse for not reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have been made readily available to the public on many web sites, including the site of the U.S. Senate. Kennedy and Reid should do themselves a favor and actually read it.
Here is the clause in question for anyone who can’t look it up themselves:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
I have more respect for the statement from John Kerry, since he seems to have actually read the Constitution:
“The president has the right to make this recess appointment.”
But then he goes on to attempt to manipulate the minds of those that won’t do their own research:
“John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs.”
REJECTED by the Senate? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that to be rejected, one must be put up for a vote. Bolton was filibustered, not rejected. Now there is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. It is strictly a Senate rule.
When I hear Senators Kerry and Dodd saying that Bolton doesn’t have the support of the Senate, it just doesn’t hold any credibility with me because we don’t know if he did or he didn’t. There never was a vote. The vote was stonewalled by a minority party. Why would they do that? Certainly if Bolton didn’t have the support of the MAJORITY of the Senate (and I mean majority of the Senate, not the majority party), there wouldn’t be a need to filibuster. So I can only conclude that Bolton actually did have enough support in the Senate to be appointed.