There has been much controversy over President Barack Obama's recent nominations for his cabinet. The nominations of White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Treasury and Defense Departments, respectively, have stirred varying amounts of concern or opposition from both Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans.  Some Republicans have pledged to vote against the nominees and vowed to launch political fights against them, regardless of what the nominees will say in their confirmation testimonies. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, even slammed the president for using the nominations to intentionally anger his party.   
 

Article II of the United States Constitution codifies one of the most consequential mechanisms of American Government: Senatorial confirmation for presidential appointments. As our government evolved, the process of considering and approving nominations, known as the "Advice and Consent of the Senate," has transformed, too. It has changed from being a mere reviewing mechanism to a potent weapon for political fights and bargaining.

Considering the political fights that dominated Washington over the past two years, I believe that presidential nominations of qualified and moral individuals should not be subjected to detrimental political entanglements without sincere and legitimate reason. The Senate should fully consider the president's selections before deciding upon them. Additionally, when considering the president's Executive nominations, Senators should put good faith in the president to select the people who will work best for him in running the country and implementing his policies.

The framers of the Constitution adopted the confirmation process to prevent one political branch or person from abusing political power in running the government. Nevertheless, the recent controversy does call for a discussion on the appropriate usage and scope of the Senate's exclusive power to confirm nominations and whether Senators are using it for its intended purpose.

While I understand the concerns that some Senators have over the nominations, such as Hagel's previous statements on U.S.-Israel policy and homosexual politicians, I do not believe such nominations warrant vicious attacks or lasting obstruction. Senators should observe and hear the nominee's record and testimony before pledging to oppose or fight a nomination, as the confirmation process can reveal details that may change their minds once the nominee explains his history and opinions.       

According to the website of the U.S. Senate, the Senate has also historically deferred to the president in selecting cabinet officials, and would usually confirm them without problems, unless the nominee was truly perceived as incompetent or morally deficient to be entrusted with government matters. This deference followed the practice of allowing the president greater latitude in implementing policies in accordance with his judgment.

As time progressed, however, the confirmation process intensified, and political scholars Roger H. Davidson, Walter J. Oleszek and Frances E. Lee cited that adversaries of the president have even hijacked nominations to obtain leverage and bargaining power against the chief executive, or simply to obstruct his agenda and discredit his tenure.

I will not deny the importance of Senate confirmation in our government. The officials of the Executive Branch are tasked with some of the weightiest and most influential duties, ranging from the formulation of military policies to the implementation of tax laws during the recent "fiscal cliff" crisis. Especially during a time of both domestic and international crisis, we need to ensure that only the most skilled and lawful citizens operate and represent our government.

However, each president has his own overarching policies and style of operation, which the voters approved when they elected him, and he will require officials suited to his agenda in his administration. President Obama nominated Hagel and Lew with the knowledge that their policies resembled his second-term agenda. The American people, and their representatives in the Senate, should have good faith that the president, whom the American people have entrusted with the country's weighty affairs, knows the qualifications and nature required for an official who will administer and represent his policies for the country.

Therefore, if the Senate, after it has heard from the nominees, affirms that Hagel and Lew are qualified and of decent background, it should not hesitate to act on their  nominations.  
Obstruction would be a disservice both to the administration, which needs officials to fill demanding vacancies, and to the American people, who need a functioning Federal Government in Washington to implement policies and to resolve crises.

Partisan gridlock accomplished little to nothing over the past two years, and we should not start the new Congress by depriving the president of crucial advisors.

The constitutionally enshrined confirmation process exists because the Framers feared an abusive, untamed government in their new country. However, they did not intend for this process to be uncompromising, nor did they intend to  prevent the president from choosing his advisors because of his adversaries' larger political grievances.

No matter how much his enemies may oppose him, they cannot do so by shutting down the government. "Advice and Consent" was included to curb an abuse of power, but it can turn into an abuse if Senators choose to use it simply to halt government progress and humiliate the president for their selfish political gains.  
*