Today's Article
Congress may
indeed issue
resolutions
declaring its 'sense'
about an
administration
official.
indeed issue
resolutions
declaring its 'sense'
about an
administration
official.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Report Says American Congress May Issue 'No Confidence'
Resolutions
By Cliff Montgomery - June 21st, 2007
When a May 24, 2007, "no confidence" proposal in disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was recently
put before the 110th Congress, Republicans defeated the measure under the claim that only parliaments may
issue such statements.
But according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the matter, our balance of powers does
indeed allow Congress to issue non-binding resolutions on administration officials who have lost the
confidence of the true rulers of this nation, the American people.
We quote from the CRS report below:
"The use of the term 'vote of no confidence' to reflect a Senate, House or joint congressional action on a
resolution concerning an official of the executive branch might be somewhat misleading because of the
particular nature and impact of 'no confidence' votes in parliamentary democracies.
"A vote of no confidence has a technical meaning and concrete consequences only in a parliamentary form of
government, in which the continuance of the executive in office is dependent on its maintaining majority
support in the parliament (or one house thereof). The American system of separated powers, on the other
hand, makes no provision for votes of no confidence in the parliamentary sense.
"Except through the process of impeachment, accordingly, no action by the Congress (or of either House) can
have any practical effect similar to that of a parliamentary vote of no confidence.
"For example, votes of 'no confidence' or 'votes of censure' in the British Parliament, are votes instituted in
Parliament by the opposition party which, if they succeed, indicate that the Government no longer has the
support of the majority of Parliament (including the Government’s own party members), and thus lead to a
dissolution of the Government and new elections.
"Under the U.S. system of government, with the constitutional scheme of separated powers, the legislature--
Congress--does not impact directly the removal of officials in the executive branch of the Federal Government
(other than through impeachments).
"[But] adoption of a resolution expressing a lack of confidence could have symbolic effects as an
expression of the sense of Congress (or of either House). A vote expressing 'no confidence' of the Senate or
the House in a particular official of the government, while it may certainly have political implications, would have
no specific legal import.
"The issue of the propriety and the authority of Congress or of either House of Congress to officially express
an opinion concerning an executive branch officer, such as an opinion that the President should remove an
official, or that a cabinet official should resign, or to otherwise formally reprimand, 'censure,' or express
disapprobation or loss of confidence concerning an executive official has been debated and questioned from
time to time in the House and the Senate.
"In early congressional considerations some Members of Congress, in their opposition to resolutions which
declared either an opinion of praise or disapproval of the executive, cited the lack of an express constitutional
grant of authority for the House or the Senate to state an opinion on the conduct or propriety of an executive
officer in the form of a formal resolution of censure or disapproval...
"It has, however, become accepted congressional practice to employ a simple resolution of one House of
Congress, or a concurrent resolution by both Houses, for certain non-legislative matters, such as to express
the opinion or the sense of the Congress or of one House of Congress on a public matter...
"[This may include] a resolution expressing an opinion of 'no confidence' in, or other expression of censure or
disapproval of, an executive branch official...[which] would appear [as] a “sense of Congress” or “sense of the
Senate” (or House) resolution.
"The absence of express constitutional language that the Congress, or the House or the Senate individually,
may state its opinion on matters of public import in a resolution of praise or censure is not necessarily indicative
of a lack of capacity to do so, or that such practice is per se unconstitutional.
"It is recognized in both constitutional law and governmental theory that there are, of course, a number of
functions and activities of Congress which are not expressly stated or provided in the Constitution, but which
are nonetheless valid as either inherent or implied components of the legislative process or of other express
provisions in the Constitution, or are considered to be within the internal authority of democratic legislative
institutions and elective deliberative bodies generally.
"The practice of the House, Senate, or Congress to express facts or opinion in simple or concurrent
resolutions has been recognized since its earliest days as an inherent authority of the Congress and of
democratic legislative institutions generally, and the adoption of “sense of” the House or Senate resolutions on
various subjects and in reference to various people, is practiced with some frequency in every Congress."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Resolutions
By Cliff Montgomery - June 21st, 2007
When a May 24, 2007, "no confidence" proposal in disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was recently
put before the 110th Congress, Republicans defeated the measure under the claim that only parliaments may
issue such statements.
But according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the matter, our balance of powers does
indeed allow Congress to issue non-binding resolutions on administration officials who have lost the
confidence of the true rulers of this nation, the American people.
We quote from the CRS report below:
"The use of the term 'vote of no confidence' to reflect a Senate, House or joint congressional action on a
resolution concerning an official of the executive branch might be somewhat misleading because of the
particular nature and impact of 'no confidence' votes in parliamentary democracies.
"A vote of no confidence has a technical meaning and concrete consequences only in a parliamentary form of
government, in which the continuance of the executive in office is dependent on its maintaining majority
support in the parliament (or one house thereof). The American system of separated powers, on the other
hand, makes no provision for votes of no confidence in the parliamentary sense.
"Except through the process of impeachment, accordingly, no action by the Congress (or of either House) can
have any practical effect similar to that of a parliamentary vote of no confidence.
"For example, votes of 'no confidence' or 'votes of censure' in the British Parliament, are votes instituted in
Parliament by the opposition party which, if they succeed, indicate that the Government no longer has the
support of the majority of Parliament (including the Government’s own party members), and thus lead to a
dissolution of the Government and new elections.
"Under the U.S. system of government, with the constitutional scheme of separated powers, the legislature--
Congress--does not impact directly the removal of officials in the executive branch of the Federal Government
(other than through impeachments).
"[But] adoption of a resolution expressing a lack of confidence could have symbolic effects as an
expression of the sense of Congress (or of either House). A vote expressing 'no confidence' of the Senate or
the House in a particular official of the government, while it may certainly have political implications, would have
no specific legal import.
"The issue of the propriety and the authority of Congress or of either House of Congress to officially express
an opinion concerning an executive branch officer, such as an opinion that the President should remove an
official, or that a cabinet official should resign, or to otherwise formally reprimand, 'censure,' or express
disapprobation or loss of confidence concerning an executive official has been debated and questioned from
time to time in the House and the Senate.
"In early congressional considerations some Members of Congress, in their opposition to resolutions which
declared either an opinion of praise or disapproval of the executive, cited the lack of an express constitutional
grant of authority for the House or the Senate to state an opinion on the conduct or propriety of an executive
officer in the form of a formal resolution of censure or disapproval...
"It has, however, become accepted congressional practice to employ a simple resolution of one House of
Congress, or a concurrent resolution by both Houses, for certain non-legislative matters, such as to express
the opinion or the sense of the Congress or of one House of Congress on a public matter...
"[This may include] a resolution expressing an opinion of 'no confidence' in, or other expression of censure or
disapproval of, an executive branch official...[which] would appear [as] a “sense of Congress” or “sense of the
Senate” (or House) resolution.
"The absence of express constitutional language that the Congress, or the House or the Senate individually,
may state its opinion on matters of public import in a resolution of praise or censure is not necessarily indicative
of a lack of capacity to do so, or that such practice is per se unconstitutional.
"It is recognized in both constitutional law and governmental theory that there are, of course, a number of
functions and activities of Congress which are not expressly stated or provided in the Constitution, but which
are nonetheless valid as either inherent or implied components of the legislative process or of other express
provisions in the Constitution, or are considered to be within the internal authority of democratic legislative
institutions and elective deliberative bodies generally.
"The practice of the House, Senate, or Congress to express facts or opinion in simple or concurrent
resolutions has been recognized since its earliest days as an inherent authority of the Congress and of
democratic legislative institutions generally, and the adoption of “sense of” the House or Senate resolutions on
various subjects and in reference to various people, is practiced with some frequency in every Congress."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!