Appointments Clause Of The Constitution Essay

The Constitution of the United States is best understood as the product of a balancing act between the Founders’ desire to avoid a tyranny and their recognition of the need to form a strong government that would ensure national stability and prosperity. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution fits within this framework nicely. Article II, Section 2, Clause II of the Constitution states that “the President…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court.” The clause establishes a clear division of power between the executive and legislative branches in nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices. The president may not unilaterally appoint justices; he may only nominate them, and abide by the Senate’s verdict on them, whether confirmation or rejection. As the constitutional scholar John McGinnis writes, “the very …show more content…
As of June 5th, 1787, in the early days of the Constitutional Convention, the standing provision in the Constitution on the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court stated that they would “be chosen by the National Legislature.” James Wilson of Pennsylvania opposed the appointment of justices by the Congress, claiming that “intrigue, partiality, and concealment” would be the ramifications of appointment by a large body, instead proposing judicial appointment by the president. John Rutledge of South Carolina defended appointment by Congress, saying that, if the president were to appoint justices, “the people will think we are leaning too much towards Monarchy.” James Madison opposed both the standing provision and Wilson’s proposal, and proposed that appointment be vested in the smaller and more exclusive Senate, rather than the entire Congress. The “National Legislature” clause was struck and replaced with a blank for further