Allow the president to more easily appoint his cabinet members

Liberty
1

The President picking Cabinet members is akin to a CEO picking his/her top Executive Team.

Why, then, are cabinet members only appointed thorough approval of the Senate? That would be like tasking a CEO with creating efficiencies or downsizing a company but could not hire the team to do it without the express approval of the staff. Turkeys and Thanksgiving also come to mind.

In the case of the presidency, there is some logic to our present system - checks and balances and ensuring the States and their representatives have a voice are two that come to mind.

However, we have seen the abuse - on both sides - in the past. Presidents using the Congressional Recess to bulldoze through unpopular appointments. Congress taking in excess of 2 years - halfway through a presidency - to approve members and blocking or stymieing political opponents and/or undermining the President’s effectiveness. The system is broken; meanwhile governing needs to continue.

I would like to see President Trump use the power of the recess to bring in his disrupters, but to do this credibly he needs to demonstrate that he will right the wrong of our current system by promising to reform it. For example, Congress could be allowed to have a set number of Cabinet positions it can challenge; or it could be allowed to challenge only certain roles; and/or it could be given a stated time period to raise concerns or to stop the nomination. All concerns or objections could be publicly and officially recorded - therefore Congress would be offered the opportunity to make their objections formally known. But it all must be completed within a timeframe and certainly no more than a year from the election date of the President or the date of the nomination.

This or something like it would give more autonomy for the President to choose his/her top team quickly so the business of governing can start asap into the presidency. It would also allow Congress to intervene at times where it believes the President is overreaching, without filibustering or causing political mayhem.

1 Like
2

On one hand, I want to agree with this, but I do see why there is a separation of powers on this issue.

Imagine if Biden of Kamala or Hillary could pick whoever they wanted, without any resistance.

Imagine all the woke, DEI, lunatic, and criminal hires they would choose, and there’s nothing much we could do about it.

But that being said, I understand wanting Trump to be able to pick his team, and all these RINOs are going to try to get in his way. But we do need to think about the next administration too.

There are already ways Trump can appoint who he wants, bypassing the Senate, even if only temporarily.

3

I agree with you. I think the privilege should not be unfettered and restrictions of some sort should be put in place, hence some suggestions. However, circumventing the rules leaves the President - whoever s/he is - open to all sorts of (un)necessary criticism and doesn’t stop nutjobs from getting into cabinet positions (like your Clinton/Biden examples).

I would like to see a balance of doing the will of the people who elected their President on the one hand, and making sure the President does not over-reach, particularly if it is not wholly certain the People have given him/her the mandate to do so.

In 2024, it seems We the People have made our voices pretty clear and President Trump should be able to interpret the results and appoint his cabinet accordingly. It does become less clear how to check the President when, say, he loses the popular vote but wins the EC.

Greater Constitutional minds than mine can probably come up with some ideas. I think it needs reform, because recessing Congress (with tyrannical-like optics) or filibustering and choking the effectiveness of the sitting President are not options that seem to be working.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my suggestion!