Daily Roundup - Feb 14, 2016 - Advice and Consent

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

As is clearly seen above, foreign affairs, treaties, and Supreme Court appointments are co-operative actions starting with the Senate as an advisor, and ending with the senate as consenting to the choice of the president after he received the advise.

 According to Wikipedia

Several framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that the required role of the Senate is to advise the President after the nomination has been made by the President. Roger Sherman believed that advice before nomination could still be helpful. Likewise, President George Washington took the position that pre-nomination advice was allowable but not mandatory. The notion that pre-nomination advice is optional has developed into the unification of the "advice" portion of the power with the "consent" portion, although several Presidents have consulted informally with Senators over nominations and treaties.

It is time that we went back to this "optional" use of the term advice and consent, and simply withdraw consent whenever the Senate has not been previously allowed to "advise" the president and have him work from a list of agreed candidates.  This would eliminate the need to wait for a new President while allowing the current one to have a say in who is selected to replace Scalia.

On the President's speech -- expectations v delivery

The President will speak tonight.  Donald Trump hopes he'll discuss the "real problem" but I doubt Obama will resign.
What I expect:
1. a lot a platitudes but no action in the Middle East
2. an out and out attack on Republicans on Gun Control and "Gun Violence"
3. A unilateral set of restriction on the ownership of guns backed only by his pen and administrative clout.
4. Perhaps an announcement that he will veto the omnibus package passed by Congress just Yesterday.
We'll see how many of my "predictions" come to pass.

------------------
On another topic. The Swedish Prime minister really is out of line.  She is now angry at Israel because not enough Israeli's die when attacked by Palestinians with knives.  Why does she believe any country or person should take into account the welfare of an attacker while they are trying to murder them?  Its both puzzling and ridiculous.

-------------------
1. Completely correct. Nothing but blah
2. Not quite, asked rather meekly for using the terribly flawed no fly list to prevent people buying guns. Would have done nothing to stop San Bernardino.
3. Thank God no. 
4. Also not, but I expect this to be a fight he will take up in the near future.

Critique of The Discipline of Gratitude-- E.J. Dionne Jr

Critique of The Discipline of Gratitude-- E.J. Dionne Jr


I agree with a lot you say, but the crack about Republicans taking "You did not build that " out of context is uncalled for.
I trace POTUS statement to John Rawls who is taught at our Universities and whose position is that almost nothing we achieve is due to some particular good we have earned.  If we are smart, it was in our genes, hence there is no accomplishment. If we succeed it is because the society we live in appreciates the skills we have developed, once again, we are without input. If we work hard, its because we have been trained by our parents to do so.

This view of the President (and Rawls, and Mrs. Clinton) negates free will, the ability to work hard because of our personal decisions based on character and will.  What Rawls (and POTUS) say is correct, but it does not explain why people with similar backgrounds and capabilities succeed and fail differently, nor does it correspond to the accepted formulation of "Survival of the Fittest"

Let's all be thankful for the gifts we inherited, those we developed, and the opportunities our village has provided for us.  But let us not forget that it is effort, personal effort which produces results.

Let's remember that the little group in Massachusetts formee a failed comune whose experiment of working and sharing in common led to hunger, starvation, and death. Only when Governor Bradford canceled socialism and let free enterprise revive, did the colony prosper. "Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products,” sell whatever overages they had. “And what was the result? ‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford [in his journal], ‘for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'” See Breitbart on Thanksgiving for a fuller story, or any of the myriad books written on the Pilgrims.