In a proceduralist approach, they come close with advice and consent, they would want to maximize democracy; therefore, they might be okay with the alternative approach of the president making the appointment (pg.159). So, in this situation a proceduralist would be happy with the president taking the job because the aspect that they are more democratically accountable, then again unlike the pragmatists after that their concern is done, in regards to advise and consent.
In contrast to my argument, we would wait for the senate to start the appointment process. Since the senate would have to advise and consent congress wouldn’t. U.S. v. Nixon, in a big picture shows that Congress at time can have more powers than then executive. Further, they …show more content…
Obama should appoint Merrick Garland, we should have a clear line of what the executive can do, and the Senate can only take little remedy. The Senate is primarily allowed to choose how its proceedings are done, but this is an outlier in history. The Senate is not holding hearings, not even close to a vote and not wanting to confirm. The Senate has taken the Presidents power of judgment. The senate as being silent due to its political motivation is wrong. There are cases and situations, specifically that have to do with the executive agreements and executive orders, usually when Congress is silent it can mean consent. Further, Lessig and Sunstien, believe that the president should be given its powers provided by the constitution in article 2, as well as, the virtues that it was been promised as the one who tries to execute all laws. This really speaks on the structure and how the president should be given the opportunity to see what he started go through the appropriate process. The separation of powers has become blurred in that this is an issue that interconnects all the branches. If the senate tried to impeach the president due to him appointing Garland, Glarland would ironically hear Obama’s impeachment trial. The model of interpretation that should interpret advise and consent is a pragmatists model because the founders wanted an efficient execution of all laws. Further, we should look at all the consequences that will be brought on to the word because of the senates purposeful inaction. The president should be able to appoint Garland because in simplest sense time is up. Time is up for everyone, the senate for its usual confirmation process, and the presidents term is also
In contrast to my argument, we would wait for the senate to start the appointment process. Since the senate would have to advise and consent congress wouldn’t. U.S. v. Nixon, in a big picture shows that Congress at time can have more powers than then executive. Further, they …show more content…
Obama should appoint Merrick Garland, we should have a clear line of what the executive can do, and the Senate can only take little remedy. The Senate is primarily allowed to choose how its proceedings are done, but this is an outlier in history. The Senate is not holding hearings, not even close to a vote and not wanting to confirm. The Senate has taken the Presidents power of judgment. The senate as being silent due to its political motivation is wrong. There are cases and situations, specifically that have to do with the executive agreements and executive orders, usually when Congress is silent it can mean consent. Further, Lessig and Sunstien, believe that the president should be given its powers provided by the constitution in article 2, as well as, the virtues that it was been promised as the one who tries to execute all laws. This really speaks on the structure and how the president should be given the opportunity to see what he started go through the appropriate process. The separation of powers has become blurred in that this is an issue that interconnects all the branches. If the senate tried to impeach the president due to him appointing Garland, Glarland would ironically hear Obama’s impeachment trial. The model of interpretation that should interpret advise and consent is a pragmatists model because the founders wanted an efficient execution of all laws. Further, we should look at all the consequences that will be brought on to the word because of the senates purposeful inaction. The president should be able to appoint Garland because in simplest sense time is up. Time is up for everyone, the senate for its usual confirmation process, and the presidents term is also