This is another example of just how out of touch some people are. It is already a done deal. He will have confirmation hearings scheduled soon, and almost all of the Dems on the SASC have gone on the record as supporting him.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Mattis has only been retired a couple of years. The law requires 7 years. He will need a new law which Dems will oppose. Nomination DOA.
16 comments:
BS he will be confirmed !
SASC isn't the determining body. House and Senate must revise the law or grant Mattis an exclusion. Not going to happen. Same with Trump's other recently retired generals he's picked for cabinet.
6:54 PM
uh...........
House and senate have already voted to allow it.
Please, do try to keep up.
Double BS!!
Senate voted with only 9 dissent, and House voted overwhelmingly positive already.
6:54 PM is delusional.
Not going to happen. Same with Trump's other recently retired generals he's picked for cabinet.
December 8, 2016 at 6:54 PM
Where do you get your information? This has no basis in fact. None whatsoever.
Julian,
These political comments have nothing to do with the labs. Please delete the thread.
These political comments have nothing to do with the labs.
December 9, 2016 at 9:46 AM
If you don't think that who becomes the new SecDef has anything to do with the labs, you are sadly misinformed.
The labs will be part of DoD soon enough, and for sure it will be most important.
The "mad dog" train is coming ! Better get on board. LOL
If the labs become part of DoD, civilian control of nuclear weapons will be lost, a very bad result for the country.
The claim of a 7 year waiting period for retired military to take a DoD position is a flat lie. Retired military must wait 6 months. That's all.
December 9, 2016 at 11:40 PM
This may be confusing to some people, but the position of SecDef is just a tad different than other positions in DoD. When it was created by Congress, they inserted a 10 year out of uniform clause for any military officer to be SecDef. They waived the requirement once before for Marshall. In subsequent years, the 10 years was lowered to 7 years.
No idea where the 6 month number comes from, but it does not apply to the current situation.
The six months is for retired uniformed personnel entering a DoD civilian job. Does not apply to SecDef position.
The 7 year provision, if contested by the President, WOULD be found unconstitutional. That's one reason why it was set aside for George Marshall.
The Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution) limits the Congress's role in appointing Government senior officers to the Senate’s “advice and consent role.” The Constitution did not give Congress the power to set constraints or qualifications on appointments. This was done by the framers on purpose, in order to limit the ability of Congress to usurp the President's control of the Executive Branch by forcing the placement of their supporters.
The Supreme Court (in Buckley v. Valeo) has already ruled that Congress does not have the authority to set qualifications for principle officers (which would clearly be extended to include senior Cabinet positions nominated by the President).
You liberals can unbunch your panties now - the 7 year constraint is a non-issue. It wouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court. It wouldn't even come to that as the Republicans who control all of Congress can waive it with a simple vote.
3:46 PM, settle down, it has already been waived by both houses of Congress.
The language to waive the 7 year nonsense was put into the continuing resolution bill that was just passed by both the House and the Senate (today). HOWEVER, that bill has yet to be signed by Obama. Will Obama cause the whole Goverment to come to a screeching halt over this non-issue? No way. The non-issue will die quietly and ranting left wingers will move on to their next non-issue.
Post a Comment