Senate abdication of its Constitutional duty to advise and consent

The decision of Senate GOP leaders to proceed with hearings on cabinet nominees before the candidates have been subjected to thorough background checks and submitted the required financial disclosure and ethics forms, undermines the Senate’s constitutional duty to “advise and consent.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, hardly a defender of the Senate’s vital constitutional role as a co-equal partner with the president in the appointment of cabinet members, has scorned critics of his rush to judgment with a brusque dismissal of their “procedural” complaints and the advice that they should “grow up.”

Yet, it was the same Mitch McConnell who, on Feb. 12, 2009, in his capacity as Minority Leader, wrote a letter to then Majority Leader Harry Reid, that the Senate should not conduct hearings of President Barack Obama’s cabinet nominations until those procedural requirements had been fully satisfied. The forms were duly completed and Obama’s nominees were confirmed.

The Office of Government Ethics, created by Congress in the post-Watergate reform period, has stated that all previous cabinet nominees have complied with the financial disclosure and ethics forms since it was created 40 years ago. The rationale for compliance is obvious: the Senate can hardly render judgment about the character and qualifications of cabinet nominees without, among other things, information about potential conflicts of interest.

This is not a partisan issue. The Senate should protect, not surrender, its constitutional status and institutional integrity. Senate abdication of its power to advise and consent converts it into an arm of the West Wing and promotes executive autocracy.

The Framers of the Constitution rejected the concept of a unilateral presidential appointment power. They overwhelmingly preferred collective judgment to that of a single person, in part, because it would protect America from executive corruption, promotion of a president’s agenda that collided with the nation’s interests and misguided presidential judgments. But the system of checks and balances may be circumvented if, for reasons of their own, Senate leaders decided to provide a blind pass of approval for cabinet nominees.

Trump’s nominees must be subjected to rigorous review and scrutiny. Sen. Jeffrey Sessions, the designee for the position of U.S. Attorney General, for example, must be asked to explain his alleged characterization of a white civil rights attorney as a “race traitor,” his statement that the NAACP is “un-American,” his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Rex Tillerson, nominated by Trump to be the next Secretary of State, must be asked to explain why, as head of Exxon, he defied American foreign policy when he engaged in oil deals with Iran, Syria and Sudan when all three states were placed on the State Department’s list of “terrorist nations.” Does Tillerson believe it is appropriate for American companies to pursue business interests that collide with the foreign policy of the United States? And, where does he stand on the issue of sanctions against Russia?

Members of the Senate committees participating in confirmation hearings, including Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, have a responsibility to Idahoans and, indeed, Americans everywhere, to stand for the principle that no nominee may be subjected to a Senate vote unless and until they have met their disclosure responsibilities. Crapo and Risch are accountable for their observance of the Constitution.

•••

David Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, which advances civic education, and author, most recently, of “The War Power in An Age of Terrorism: Debating Presidential Power.”