Posted on May 30, 2015
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
7.47K
15
8
3
3
0
Avatar feed
Responses: 4
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
2
2
0
Edited 9 y ago
Having read quite about this particular General in the past, I have to say that the Senate was right to not confirm his promotion ... frankly, he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Tommy Johnson
Sgt Tommy Johnson
9 y
Amen!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
1
1
0
Always found it interesting about officer appointments and promotions being controlled by a vote in Congress. Glad as an Enlisted Man I wasn't the victim of such External Politics for my advancement and retirement rank.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
9 y
It's part of the Constitution. Congress appoints Officers. When you get to General Officers, it's "Appointment Level" which requires confirmation just like any other executive office. It's just part of our check and balance system. it's actually a good thing.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
9 y
Actually it's both. It's a Article 1, Sec 8 Power (Legislative). It may be done under the President's hand, but it's a Congressional Power, which has been delegated per Art 2, Sect 2:

"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone."
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
9 y
Sir, straight from Art 2, Sect 2. I don't know the specific law which Congress enacted to grant the President the power for W-1 through O-4 however. I did know it was a delegated power, just because of the Senate confirmation process. Congress controls "manpower" which in turn controls the Presidents ability to appoint (sets quantitative limits).
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Jeff N.
1
1
0
Hadn't heard the story on him previously. If true, he was out of bounds. Personal servitude is a no, no.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close