Reject S.679 - The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act

One of the fiercest enemies of the US Constitution, Senator Charles Schumer, has introduced legislation to surrender Senate authority to ensure the fitness of presidential appointees. S.679 would sharply reduce the number of appointees who must be confirmed by the Senate. For example, tt would give the presidient the ability to fill major gun-related Department of Justice slots with anti-gun partisans, without the pesky inconvenience of having to comply with the Constitution's requirements for Senate confirmation. All constitutionally-protected rights are at grave risk (as if they aren't already) if this bill passes

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides that the President:

...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.

Why did the founders include such a provision in the Constitution? It's really quite simple: They knew that without such Senate oversight, a corrupt president could fill the courts and government agencies with sycophants and operatives who would support that president's tyrannical power grab and/or corrupt policies. That provision is in the Constitution to protect the Constitution!

Clearly, the Senate confirmation process is broken -- especially in the hands of Senators who do not subscribe to the principle of limited government written into the Constitution. Schumer simply has proposed the wrong fix. He knows it. Every Senator knows it. The question is, how many Senators will fight this latest attack on the Constitution?

It seems to me that the correct way to fix the broken confirmation process is to consistently and expeditiously:

1 - Assess the nominee's professional skills for the position.
2 - Thoroughly evaluate the nominee's moral fitness. (Does he obey the law?)
3 - Eliminate political leanings as a criterion -- except as it applies to strict faithfulness to the Constitution.
4 - Thoroughly examine the nominee's knowledge, understanding, and demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Congressmen (as far as has been disclosed to the public) do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." S.679 is contrary to that oath and sacred trust. S.679 must be defeated at all costs!