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.
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.
Comments
uh...........
House and senate have already voted to allow it.
Please, do try to keep up.
Senate voted with only 9 dissent, and House voted overwhelmingly positive already.
6:54 PM is delusional.
December 8, 2016 at 6:54 PM
Where do you get your information? This has no basis in fact. None whatsoever.
These political comments have nothing to do with the labs. Please delete the thread.
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.
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 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.