What presidential actions require Senate approval?

Answer 1

By the express requirements of the United States Constitution, there are two kinds of presidential action that require Senate approval: nomination of high-level appointments to positions of authority in the federal government, and the approval of treaties negotiated by Executive Branch officials and signed by the President.

1 - Nomination of High-Level Appointments

Pursuant to the "advice and consent" provision of the Appointments Clause (Section 2, Article II) of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States may not make certain high-level appointments to positions in the federal government without the advice and consent of the United States Senate. "Consent" means approval by a majority vote of a quorum of the Senate. A higher percentage of approval may be necessary if the opposition party mounts a filibuster, in which case 60% approval by the entire Senate is required to end the filibuster and proceed to a vote on confirmation. Although not constitutionally required, approval of a nomination generally follows a hearing by a Senate Committee normally assigned the task of reviewing legislation pertinent to the office of the nominee, so that Senators from all political parties on the Committee may pose questions to the nominee (or to other persons whose testimony might be relevant to the nomination).

The same provision of the Constitution empowers Congress to determine, through legislation, which appointments will require their advice and consent. However, the Constitution expressly requires the Senate's advice and consent for the appointment of Ambassadors, Judges of the Supreme Court, and other "Public Ministers and Consuls." The latter expression has come to mean, through long practice and common convention, that at least the persons nominated for appointment to top Cabinet level positions, their deputies, and federal judicial positions created by Congress pursuant to their authority under Article III, will all require Senate approval before they may be confirmed to their positions. In any event, the statutes authorizing those positions always state whether Senate advice and consent is required for the appointment. Since the list of appointments requiring Senate approval is not stated in any one place in the federal laws, the statute authorizing the appointment must be consulted to determine whether a particular appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate. 2 - Ratification of Treaties

In addition to the Appointments Clause of Section 2 of Article II, another "advice and consent" provision in that same section, called the Treaty Clause, requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to ratify any treaty with a foreign power that has previously been negotiated and signed by the President. Without Senate ratification, a treaty may not become law. It should be noted that ratification of a treaty is the only lawmaking power of the Congress that requires only one House of Congress (i.e., the Senate) for approval. In very limited circumstances, a President might choose to honor a treaty's terms without Senate ratification. However, in this particular instance, the Congress may refuse to fund the executive branch's actions taken in regard to the treaty (effectively preventing them through the "Power of the Purse," and may even prohibit the executive's observance of the treaty's terms through appropriate legislation. 3 - Controversies over the Scope of Presidential Power

There is much controversy surrounding the precise scope of the President's discretion to take action vis-a-vis the legislature. Clearly the President may not act in contravention of any constitutionally enacted statute. However, proponents of increased power in the executive branch have argued for a broader interpretation of executive power, and have been supported to some extent by Supreme Court decisions in favor of the Executive's plenary power to protect the borders and otherwise safeguard the national security of the United States. A. Executive Orders

Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders. B. War Powers

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during President Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all Presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so. In addition, although Article II provides that the President is the commander-in-chief of the military forces of the United States, the powers to raise armies, make war, and take certain measures to maintain civilian order (such as martial law) are expressly reserved for the Congress by Sections 8 and 9 of Article I, and not to the President by any of the other provisions of Article II (see above regarding Executive Orders). C. Martial Law

In regard to domestic disturbances, the concept of martial law in the United States is closely tied with the right of Habeas Corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment or, more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend Habeas Corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In addition, in 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 possibly rescinds these limits by suspending habeas corpus, but the law is not clear on whether it applies to U.S. Citizens, and its constitutionality in that regard is highly suspect.

In any event, the question of federal involvement without specific legislative authorization (or court order pursuant to such authorization) to impose martial law is side-stepped if a state governor, pursuant to state law, mobilizes the National Guard as the state's militia in order to quell a riot and maintain peace and order. The actions of a state militia would still be governed by the federal Constition's prohibition of unwarranted search and seizure contained in the Fourth Amendment, but the threat to life and safety of a riot would most likely satisfy the exigent circumstance exception that is normally considered by the courts to be a part of the Amendment's provisions.

Answer 2

Treaties, impeachment, cabinets, and putting someone in a position.