Senior government appointments in the US.
The question of appointments to civil service in the US is a constant topic of debate as to the question of presidential powers and bureaucracy take centre stage in the discussion. Roberts (2014) states that with each presidential candidate taking office with preconceived objectives and modus operandi, it gets imperative to have people with whom they can have an amicable and agreeable working relationship. However, for a mature bureaucracy like the US federal government, Presidential powers are kept in check, and the president cannot always have their absolute say. Presidential appointments on most occasions, have to pass through the Senate. These include judges, ambassadors, public ministers and consuls. This relationship spelt out by law has always caused questions within the government with people expressing diverse opinions on statements such as ‘senior officer serves at the president pleasure’. However, the overwhelming majority agrees that the state of running a country should not be left to a single person. Thus the Senate has a vital role in ensuring the right people serve America in different appointed capacities.
According to Garnett, (2019), Article II section 2 of the US constitution grants the powers to the office of the president to nominate, seek the approval and appoint a principal officer to serve the government in different capacities. However, the president is also mandated to give temporary appointments in special conditions until when the Senate can approve a permanent appointment. These special powers are granted by the federal vacancies reform act and cover situations such as when the Senate is in recess and cannot outright approve an appointment. The president can, however, hire and fire junior officer who serves under the Senate vetted officers. Yet, these hire and fire powers can also be vested in the congress or even a court of law.
The Senate, on the other hand, is the oversight authority that is mandated with approving nominations by the president for appointment. Theirs involves a complete vetting process that is usually public and where the credentials and capabilities of nominated candidates are openly challenged. The US senate and congress in most instances have shown a great deal of faith in presidential nominations with a few positions receiving unusual public debate and media attention. The Senate usually forms a committee that oversees presidential nominations for approval. The committees are tasked with hearings, investigations, reporting, debating and even voting to approve an appointment especially if the position is so vital or the person involved draws undue public interest (Roberts, 2014).
The whole issue of appointments has been politicized in recto times with the sway the president has on the Senate becoming more of a matter of concern. This has not only been limited to appointment and firing of government officers but also the passing of crucial bills in the two houses of parliament. The Scenario was evident where most citizens and the president himself wrongly interpreted recent spurts by President Trump saying that he has unfettered control of fire and hire powers. According to Woodward (2018), Trump claimed that article 2 granted him full powers to fire employees in the executive, which is in the same line as firing. However, this notion is not consistent with the constitutional powers granted to the presidency.
The method of choosing senior public officers is a vetted and approved wine that is designee dot get only the most deserving individuals in public service. However, it has its demerits which include the high politicization of the whole process. Citizens count on the goodwill and discipline of the senators to deliver. However, the trend that has always been shown by the Senate; one where a majority of nominations are approved with little questions, point directly to the fact that the president has an overpowering power over the Senate (Bennett, 2016). Most legislators are lignin up behind the ruling party and endorsing their choices if it makes them look politically correct and more of mavericks. This would reflect on President Trump’s claims that he has unlimited fire and hire powers, confidence that the Senate will always back his decisions provided his party has the majority in the house (Wolff, 2019). The biggest problem that is posed by this demerit is that the [president could make politically instigated appointments that would be approved by the Senate with little question. This would be a convenient channel for incompetent people to get into public office.
Despite the overwhelming debate concerning this issue, the underlying and binding factor is that the president is believed to have the confidence of the citizens of the US. This means that presidential nominations are trusted and readily approved with the belief that they are in the best interest of the people of the USA. This shows the maturity of the democracy and bureaucratic institutions that run the government. Likewise, the senators, when conducting their vetting processes, aren’t locked away from public opinion or information that might assist a better decision making on behalf of the people.
The president has been given the powers of nominating persons that they feel are the best for public offices. This process is assisted by the Senate that is elected by the people. The question of nominations is one that needs the involvement of every citizen. The present criteria were devised in a manner that depicts the indirect democracy in the US. Senators are assumed to have the trust of their people and abide by the ideals of their political party and thus will vote or decide in a predictable pattern according to the general public demand or expectations. This system is pivotal for the excellent running of the government.
References.
Bennett, A. J. (2016). The American president’s cabinet: from Kennedy to Bush. Springer.
Garnett, J. L. (2019). Reorganizing state government: The executive branch. Routledge.
Roberts, J. C. (2014). The struggle over executive appointments. Utah L. Rev., 725.
Wolff, M. (2019). Siege: Trump Under Fire. Henry Holt and Company.
Woodward, B. (2018). Fear: Trump in the White House. Simon and Schuster.