In the Federalist Paper 76,

In the Federalist Paper 76, Alexander Hamilton went into detail about the appointing power of the executive branch (the President) in regards to the nomination and appointment of "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution." In this paper, Hamilton contended that the individual holding the office of President would not be tempted to nominate based on corrupt or unethical reasons because of the legislative branch's affirmation to appointment:

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

According to Hamilton a man who respected the principles of the Constitution and of the American people could not make such a choice and yet we have seen it happen. So one begins to wonder...was Hamilton wrong? I don't think so. I think that the system works and the reasoning he provided is very logical. Why would a man compromise his own reputation by appointing someone because of his own private inclinations? Yet we have seen it with the nomination of Miers. Many may argue that we simply don't know. Many argue that she could be the next Reinquist. Yes, she could....and she could not. But in my opinion, what we have seen here is a man who defied the reasoning that Hamilton encouraged would make the system work. There is much more evidence to suggest that this nomination was personal rather than professional which undermines the Constitution and the will of the people. I hope that I am wrong about her...for the sake of this great nation. Posted by everyman at October 5, 2005 08:48 AM | TrackBack