Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2018, 03:36:56 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Can senators vote on their own confirmation process when nominated to cabinet?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Can senators vote on their own confirmation process when nominated to cabinet?  (Read 488 times)
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,352


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P
View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 21, 2017, 10:15:08 am »

I know it is tradition for senators to recuse themselves from such votes, but it is specifically required by law?
Logged

I never use toss ups

Current predictions
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,343
United States


View Profile WWW
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2017, 01:48:17 pm »

It isn't required by the Constitution.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. ó Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
NewYorkExpress
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,129
United States


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2017, 02:42:38 pm »

It isn't required by the Constitution.

There's something we need an amendment for... that's a huge potential conflict of interest right there.
Logged

cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,318


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2017, 05:20:04 pm »

It isn't required by the Constitution.

There's something we need an amendment for... that's a huge potential conflict of interest right there.

Itís not really a potential conflict of interest. Any rational person who wants to be in the cabinet would vote for himself or herself if he or she were able. He or she isnít profiting by the decision by any more than it is publicly known. This isnít like a Congressman voting on a bill that has the effect of upping the stock price of stock he owns or something.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,524


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2017, 08:07:25 am »

Other than the larger number of participating voters, isn't this ethically the same as when a candidate casts a vote for themselves in an election?
Logged

Blue3
Starwatcher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,119
United States


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2017, 08:16:13 am »

It isn't required by the Constitution.

There's something we need an amendment for... that's a huge potential conflict of interest right there.
"Conflicts of interest" are overrated.
Logged
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,367
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2017, 09:49:45 am »

Other than the larger number of participating voters, isn't this ethically the same as when a candidate casts a vote for themselves in an election?

"Voting in elections" as "conflict of interests" is an interesting thing. John Harlan Marshal II openly declined to vote in any presidential election while serving as a Associate Justice. Members of the British Royal Family doesn't vote not to appear as "partial", even though the vote is secret.

Members of the House of Lords likewise cannot vote in general elections, under an old rationale of "peers" and "commoners" being distinct groups, and thus Lords should not be able to influence Commons elections, as the Commons doesn't appoint peers (which is untrue, given MPs such as PM, Leader of the Opposition picks a number of new peers). Lords of course can vote in other elections.

Anyway, there was an old saying there are three categories of people that can't vote: lunatics, criminals and lords.
Logged

muon2
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,524


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2017, 12:35:07 pm »

Other than the larger number of participating voters, isn't this ethically the same as when a candidate casts a vote for themselves in an election?

"Voting in elections" as "conflict of interests" is an interesting thing. John Harlan Marshal II openly declined to vote in any presidential election while serving as a Associate Justice. Members of the British Royal Family doesn't vote not to appear as "partial", even though the vote is secret.

Members of the House of Lords likewise cannot vote in general elections, under an old rationale of "peers" and "commoners" being distinct groups, and thus Lords should not be able to influence Commons elections, as the Commons doesn't appoint peers (which is untrue, given MPs such as PM, Leader of the Opposition picks a number of new peers). Lords of course can vote in other elections.

Anyway, there was an old saying there are three categories of people that can't vote: lunatics, criminals and lords.

However, the American tradition is that elected officials are equal to their fellow citizens and should neither gain nor lose any rights as such. That would include the right to vote in general elections.
Logged

Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,367
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2017, 02:01:42 pm »

Other than the larger number of participating voters, isn't this ethically the same as when a candidate casts a vote for themselves in an election?

"Voting in elections" as "conflict of interests" is an interesting thing. John Harlan Marshal II openly declined to vote in any presidential election while serving as a Associate Justice. Members of the British Royal Family doesn't vote not to appear as "partial", even though the vote is secret.

Members of the House of Lords likewise cannot vote in general elections, under an old rationale of "peers" and "commoners" being distinct groups, and thus Lords should not be able to influence Commons elections, as the Commons doesn't appoint peers (which is untrue, given MPs such as PM, Leader of the Opposition picks a number of new peers). Lords of course can vote in other elections.

Anyway, there was an old saying there are three categories of people that can't vote: lunatics, criminals and lords.

However, the American tradition is that elected officials are equal to their fellow citizens and should neither gain nor lose any rights as such. That would include the right to vote in general elections.

True.  As of the main question, were there instances, at least in recent history, of a Senator nominated for cabinet post voting other than "present" or "abstain"?
Logged

MB
MB298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,371
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2017, 03:38:31 pm »

I think they should be able to. Say the senate is split and it is expected to be a 50-50 vote. They would vote for themselves and VP could break the tie in their favor.
Logged


Member of Fremont Parliament since Nov. 2017
President Johnson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,366
Germany


View Profile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2017, 02:59:17 pm »

The most interesting scenario would be: The electoral college is deadlocked 269-269 between nominee of party A and party B (I don't use Dems and GOP now for this example). The House state delegations are also deadlocked and can't elect a president until January 20. The senate now has to chose a vice president. Let's say nominee of party A won the popular vote, but party B holds a 50-50 seat majority in the senate (outgoing VP as tie-breaker is from party B). The vice presidential nominee of party B is a sitting senator. He can't abstain from voting because that would hand party A's candidate the vice presidency (and maybe the presidency). Just a wild thought...
Logged

Pragmatic Democrat. Socially liberal, economically/fiscally moderate.

Favorite president: Lyndon B. Johnson
Best president we never had: Nelson Rockefeller

Read my TL: The liberal Republic



Steve Bullock/Kamala Harris 2020
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,343
United States


View Profile WWW
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2017, 10:13:15 pm »

The most interesting scenario would be: The electoral college is deadlocked 269-269 between nominee of party A and party B (I don't use Dems and GOP now for this example). The House state delegations are also deadlocked and can't elect a president until January 20. The senate now has to chose a vice president. Let's say nominee of party A won the popular vote, but party B holds a 50-50 seat majority in the senate (outgoing VP as tie-breaker is from party B). The vice presidential nominee of party B is a sitting senator. He can't abstain from voting because that would hand party A's candidate the vice presidency (and maybe the presidency). Just a wild thought...

The Vice President doesn't get a vote in a Senate election for Vice President.  Rather than the usual voting requirement of a majority of those present with the Veep breaking ties, that vote requires a majority of the whole number of Senators, regardless of whether they are present or not.  So with 50 States, it takes 51 Senators.  Even if only 99 Senators are present, a 50-49 vote does not elect a Vice President.  So in your scenario of a split 50-50 Senate it doesn't matter if he abstains.  Now if the Senate were split 51-49 then a Senator from the party having 51 Senators abstaining would keep the result deadlocked at 50-49.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. ó Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines