ETVT Congressional oversight of the President is ineffective (30) Flashcards
Oversight of president appointments is effective
Supreme Court Justice appointments – Senate questioned the qualifications of the proposed nomination of Harriet Miers by Bush – she was scrutinised and questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which she failed to answer the questions accurately and properly on basic constitutional law concepts. She had never been a judge at any level, and so was lacking in experience. She also had to redo her questionnaire requested by the SJC, as her answers had been inadequate, insufficient, and some false – mentioned that there was a specific constitutional right to proportional representation. The Senate was an effective check on the executive branch, and on important appointments, because through scrutinising the nomination, it became clear that she was not fit for the role. Miers withdrew her nomination, illustrating how the Senate helps to provide oversight, preventing the President from using their powers to bring in a partisan, unqualified person, who could have yielded a huge amount of influence as a SC justice
Standing committees in congress have the function of scrutinising appointments, this is then voted on in the senate.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Ronny Jackson was nominated by Trump in 2018, but the US Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs accused him of creating a hostile work environment, drinking on the job, and dispensing medication improperly. He subsequently withdrew himself from considerations
John Tower was nominated by Bush SR as the Defence secretary in 1989, the largest factors to his disaproval were concern about possible conflicts of interest and Tower’s personal life, in particular allegations of alcohol abuse and womanizing. He was voted down in the committee vote 9-11 and in the senate 47-53.
Neera Tanden – nomination for Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by Biden, in 2020. She deleted over 1000 of her tweets the moment she was nominated, raising questions about transparency. Many republicans and some democrats opposed the nomination. She withdrew the nomination as a result
These three examples show how scrutiny by Senators and Senate committees led to the subsequent withdrawal of their appointments. Forces the President to be more careful in who they choose to appoint
Oversight of presidential appointments is ineffective
Presidents can circumvent rejected appointments – for instance, following her rejection by the senate, Obama appointed Susan Rice as National Security Advisor, a role which doesn’t require approval by the Senate. This illustrates the ineffectiveness of congressional oversight because the President was able to give Susan Rice an important role by appointing her to the executive branch, where she was able to influence foreign policy, through the 2015 National Security Strategy.
Furthermore, Neera Tanden, following her withdrawal, was appointed as a senior advisor to Biden a month later. This is arguably a more powerful position, where she can exert greater unchecked influence, because as Director of the Office of management and budget, although she would have had power over the budget, she would have been subject to committee oversight. In contrast, as Senior Advisor, she is one of six senior advisors, and is included in daily briefings in the White House. Therefore, this suggests that oversight has been ineffective as despite an elected body expressing its concern, she has still been appointed to a powerful position within the govt
Brett Kavanaugh – nominated – sexual assault allegations, yet he still passed the Senate vote – all Democrats except Manchin voted against his confirmation – suggests ineffectiveness in checking the President’s nominations, because he was controversial, yet still nominated.
The Senate judiarcy committee was republican controlled in 2016 and refused to hold hearings on Merrick Garland.
Oversight on the presidents foreign policy powers is effective
Senate has the power to ratify international treaties made by the President – a 2/3 majority is needed in order for a treaty to successfully be ratified.
For instance, the USMCA, the trade deal replacing NAFTA, was ratified by the Sentae, with a bipartisan vote of 89-10 in 2018
Similarly, START II 1993 was ratified by the Senate with a vote of 87-4
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 2015 – Congress gave itself the power to review any agreement which the President made with Iran on nuclear weapons.
Case Zablocki Act 1972 – president must report to Congress within 60 days of making an executive agreement – however Congress has little power to do anything if it is unhappy with the agreement.
Oversight on the presidents foreign policy powers is ineffective
However, the President can skirt this oversight by passing an executive agreement, as Obama did with passing the Iran Nuclear deal, or with the normalisation of relations with Cuba. Furthermore, executive agreements have been used to make climate agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord in 2016, which was repealed by Trump and then brought back by Biden (can eval talking about the fragility of executive agreements, although they are a useful tool for Presidents when they know that the treaty will not be ratified by Congress, e.g., with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)
The president has increasingly used Executive agreements to skirt Article II treaties which requires the ‘advise and consent’ of the senate.
Ability to impeach the president is effective
Nixon – as a result of the Watergate scandal, in which it was revealed through the release of Oval Office tapes, and other evidence acquired, that Nixon had conspired to cover up the activities that took place after the burglary. The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of congress. He would most likely have been impeached had he not resigned, illustrating the effectiveness of this measure, as it prevents the President from ruling arbitrarily without any consequences
This was because by beginning the impeachment process, he lost all credibility.
Ability to impeach the president is ineffective
Trump impeachments failed – Trump has twice been impeached, firstly on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress in 2019, and second for incitement of insurrection in 2021. Both times, the impeachment failed to receive the 67 votes required
1st impeachment – for abuse of power, the vote for 48 for conviction 52, for acquittal, with Mitt Romney being the only Republican senator voting to convict Trump. For obstruction of congress, 47 voted to convict, and 53 voted for acquittal
2nd impeachment – 57 senators voted to convict Trump, while 43 senators voted that he wasn’t guilty
Clinton impeachment also failed – tried to impeach him for obstruction of justice and for lying under oath – 55 and 50 voted for acquittal respectively, and he stayed as President for the remainder of his tenure
Power to pass the budget is effective
Congress has power of the purse, meaning that congress can limit the federal governments power in this case, as they are able to deny the executive branch finds to enact its government programmes, a federal shutdown ensues.
For example in 2018 Trump sought to have a appropriations bill that including a funding measure on border security, providing $5.7 billion towards construction of a wall along the Mexican border, democrats questioned the effectiveness of the wall and wasting tax payers money.
The democrats controlled the house and refused to support the border wall funding scheme, the resolution was $1.3 billion in funding for 55 miles of steel border fence.
Power to pass the budget is ineffective
Whilst congress have power of the purse, the president is able to access funding in case of a national emergency, as a result he was able to gain access to $8 billion to use for the border security and construction of the trump wall, despite congressional not approving.
2013 government shutdown arguably shows that it can just be used as a partisan tool in order to prevent the other party from achieving their aims, republicans in the house for example in 2013 would only include sections of the bill that either delayed or defunded the ACA policy of the democrats.
