Democrats Propose Vote of No Confidence

by Mike on June 11, 2007

in Politics

Frustrated that the President has control over the President’s appointees, Democrats recently targeted Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez over the firing of U.S. attorneys. Now that their pressure has failed to remove Gonzalez, Democrats and Arlen Specter plan to offer a motion of no confidence in Gonzalez. This tells us that the Democrats have either forgotten which country they are in or that they have never read the Constitution.

Under the United States Constitution, Presidential appointees are normally under the President’s control. However, the Constitution provides a mechanism whereby the Congress can step in and remove officials from office. A federal official may be impeached and removed from office by a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 2/3 approval in the Senate. This is quite difficult to accomplish. To make matters worse for our liberal friends, the Constitution also provides that such officials may only be removed for high crimes or misdemeanors. It says nothing about removing officials for differences of opinion. Although this requirement is easy enough to ignore, that pesky supermajority requirement persists.

Enter the no confidence motion. In Parliamentary systems, an opposition can offer a motion of no confidence to remove a government official or even topple a government. This motion can be passed with a simple majority and can be offered for any reason at all, even purely political ones. The problem is, the U.S. Constitution contains no such provision.

Since they can’t impeach Gonzalez and there is no provision for a binding motion of no confidence, the left has entered their land of make believe where they can pretend to be Parliament and pass a motion of no confidence in Gonzalez. It won’t accomplish anything but at least they’ll feel good about themselves.

Theatrics notwithstanding, wasting time on this motion is probably a good thing. Last week, Harry Reid claimed that he didn’t have enough time to continue debating the amnesty legislation. I suppose Reid thought he had more important matters to attend to. Fair enough. Whatever distracts these fools from amnesty is good enough for me, even if it is only playtime.

UPDATE: Motion successfully filibustered.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

BillT June 12, 2007 at 9:38 am

Time has an absurd article wondering that if No vote of “no confidence” is the same as confidence. The whole discussion has become absurd.

Reply

Noonan June 12, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Wow, that really does show Democrats’ leaders ignorance of the Constitution and really is more akin to European Parliamentary procedure. Reminds of another example of their emulation of European Parliamentary style in their shouting “no, no” to Bush’s invitation to examine the social security crisis in the State of the Union a few years ago.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: