Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 05:58 PM Mar 2016

advise and dissent?

What does the phrase "advise and consent" mean in its simplest form?

The founders added the phrase to the constitution to take away some power from the Executive and give it to the Senate.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 states: "The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I do not see anywhere in the Constitution where it says that the Senate has the power to "dissent"??

The compromise in the language of the Constitution was to give the Senate the power to "advise" the President on his nominations to the Supreme Court. Political Parties did not have the power that they have today. The welfare of the nation was paramount to any political Party. It is a different situation today.

However, a rational interpretation would read the Constitution to mean that the Senate has a right to "advise" the President on his nominations and, if they disagree with the nomination, they have the right to "dissent", although the only option in the language of the Constitution is the right to "advise and consent". It says nothing about holding up nominations or not voting on them at all. That is all made up by the politicians for purely political reasons.

47 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
advise and dissent? (Original Post) kentuck Mar 2016 OP
They have the right to 'dissent' by elleng Mar 2016 #1
Yes. kentuck Mar 2016 #3
By not mandating a timeline SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #4
I would disagree. kentuck Mar 2016 #6
OK SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #7
They can't be forced. kentuck Mar 2016 #11
If they can't be forced SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #12
Presidents shall have the "power"... kentuck Mar 2016 #14
Well, your opinion is wrong SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #16
They are equal branches but they are not equal in nominating judges or ambassadors.. kentuck Mar 2016 #19
Absolutely SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #21
We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of the founders but... kentuck Mar 2016 #30
You can't make valid interpretations SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #32
Yes it does. kentuck Mar 2016 #34
Fair enough SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #36
Advise and consent can only happen after the President nominates... kentuck Mar 2016 #39
Wrong SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #41
So? kentuck Mar 2016 #43
So? SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #44
You have shown nothing. kentuck Mar 2016 #45
For anyone with basic reading comprehension SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #46
What does the Constitution say? kentuck Mar 2016 #47
Very true. raging moderate Mar 2016 #2
The constitution doesn't require the Senate to consent or even vote on a nomination or treaty. PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #5
"Shall have the power to advise and consent"... kentuck Mar 2016 #8
Shall have the power SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #10
Where are those words in the Constitution? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #15
If you are going to put something in quotes, make sure you are actually quoting... PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #17
They would probably get a 4-4 vote. kentuck Mar 2016 #20
More likely 8-0 SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #23
8-0 for the Senate's right to do nothing. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #25
Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #9
But there is no precedence for it? kentuck Mar 2016 #13
there's lots of precedence for the Senate not to vote on treaties and appointments PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #18
It doesn't happen that often... kentuck Mar 2016 #24
This is the first time that it has happened for a Supreme Court nominee... PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #29
"...such Inferior officers.." kentuck Mar 2016 #31
The glaring Constitutional issue is that Republicans are claiming the people should have a voice. merrily Mar 2016 #22
The Republicans are admitting that the Supreme Court should be political... kentuck Mar 2016 #26
Both parties believe the Supreme Court should be political SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #28
Since Scalia, it has been going very right-wing. kentuck Mar 2016 #33
I think you need to take a look SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #35
Scalia was the beginning.... kentuck Mar 2016 #37
That's very different than SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #38
I'll give you that point. kentuck Mar 2016 #40
I agree that the people don't choose justices SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #27
All that Costitution mumbo jumbo is just a bunch of crap. All that matters is the world wide wally Mar 2016 #42

elleng

(130,126 posts)
1. They have the right to 'dissent' by
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:01 PM
Mar 2016

not approving a nominee they've considered. There is no explicit 'right' to not consider.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
11. They can't be forced.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:12 PM
Mar 2016

The President can only point out that their opposition is purely political and there is no precedent for such actions.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
14. Presidents shall have the "power"...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:15 PM
Mar 2016

Senators only have the right to advise and consent. It is not an equal shared power, in my opinion.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
19. They are equal branches but they are not equal in nominating judges or ambassadors..
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:23 PM
Mar 2016

That is reserved for the Executive.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
21. Absolutely
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:25 PM
Mar 2016

But that's where it ends for the executive - the nomination. After that, all rights/responsibilities lie with the Senate.

The Senate can't nominate judges or ambassadors, but the President can't appoint them without the Senate.

Co-equal.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
30. We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of the founders but...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:32 PM
Mar 2016

I read it as the President "shall" (required) nominate Supreme Court Justices and the Senate "shall" "advise and consent". That would mean they could "advise" the President to appoint someone else or they could consent to his nominee. I think the "shall" is implicit in the clause for the Senate as well as the President.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
32. You can't make valid interpretations
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:35 PM
Mar 2016

based on verbiage that isn't even in the Constitution.

Nowhere does it say the President "shall nominate" anyone, and nowhere does it say the Senate "shall advise and consent".

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
34. Yes it does.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:38 PM
Mar 2016

""The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, ..."

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
36. Fair enough
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:45 PM
Mar 2016

It says the President "shall nominate". Now, where does it say that the Senate "shall advise and consent"?

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
39. Advise and consent can only happen after the President nominates...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:48 PM
Mar 2016

and is implicit within the same sentence in the same clause.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
41. Wrong
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:54 PM
Mar 2016

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law


The President shall nominate. If the Senate gives consent, he shall appoint. There is no mandate that the Senate consent, or that they even consider.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
44. So?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 08:21 PM
Mar 2016

The whole premise of this thread, which you started, is that the Senate must hold hearings and that they must advise and consent.

Having been shown that your premise is incorrect, all of you've got is "So?"

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
46. For anyone with basic reading comprehension
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 08:31 PM
Mar 2016

I, and others, have shown that you're completely dead wrong in saying that the Senate must advise and consent whenever the President presents a nomination.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
5. The constitution doesn't require the Senate to consent or even vote on a nomination or treaty.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:05 PM
Mar 2016

Thus the White House will not be taking the issue to the Supreme Court or try to seat
a justice that doesn't get a hearing.

This is a political issue not a legal one.




PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
17. If you are going to put something in quotes, make sure you are actually quoting...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:19 PM
Mar 2016

what it says.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


If the administration really believed the Constitution required the Senate to vote on the issue they'd take
the issue to the Supreme Court for a ruling. They won't because this is a political "do your job" issue not
a Constitutional one.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
18. there's lots of precedence for the Senate not to vote on treaties and appointments
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:21 PM
Mar 2016

in any sort of timely manner (although waiting nearly a year would be the longest time for a Supreme Court
nominee).

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
24. It doesn't happen that often...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:26 PM
Mar 2016

but I don't know if any nominee has been held up until the next President is sworn into office?

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
29. This is the first time that it has happened for a Supreme Court nominee...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:31 PM
Mar 2016

but note that the section of the constitution includes also:

ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, ..., and all other officers of the United States,

some of who didn't receive a vote for a longer time period.




merrily

(45,251 posts)
22. The glaring Constitutional issue is that Republicans are claiming the people should have a voice.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:25 PM
Mar 2016

However, the Constitution deliberately and carefully kept SCOTUS Justices out of the hands of the people, both as to installing them and removing them.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
26. The Republicans are admitting that the Supreme Court should be political...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:27 PM
Mar 2016

and should rule in their favor, or else.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
33. Since Scalia, it has been going very right-wing.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:36 PM
Mar 2016

And needs to be brought into balance. Yes, it is political but that doesn't mean nothing should be done to correct it when it goes too far to the left or too far to the right, as requested by the vote of the people when they vote for their President.

(edited by adding "going" )

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
38. That's very different than
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:46 PM
Mar 2016

the Supreme Court has been right wing ever since Scalia joined, which is what you claimed previously.

world wide wally

(21,718 posts)
42. All that Costitution mumbo jumbo is just a bunch of crap. All that matters is the
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:56 PM
Mar 2016

last 7 or 8 words of the Second Amendment.
PERIODt!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»advise and dissent?