More than one way to skin the NRA

[DontSayBanana]

I would have no problem with amending the Constitution to do away with confirmations.

Maybe keep it for judges, since they sit for life, not just the term of the president.

It's tangled pretty deeply in checks and balances.  The problem is that the Constitution doesn't require that the Senate confirm this particular appointment, but it's also clear that the appointment is Congress' to give to the President, not the President's to take from the Congress.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[alfred russel]

I don't see how the NRA is so different: they aren't a mainstream organization despite their power, so I don't see it as crazy that they would believe any nominee under Obama and some under Bush are unacceptable.

If the NRA were honest enough to admit that they oppose enforcing any gun laws, your point might be valid.  However, the NRA leadership frequently tries to deflect calls for new gun regulations with the argument that "we wouldn't have this problem if the existing laws were simply enforced.  They then do everything they can to make sure that the existing laws don't get enforced (and thus that the gun violence problem worsens).  It is hypocrisy on the face of it.

They are an advocacy organization. I rather doubt they are against enforcing all gun laws, though they are certainly against some that have been passed. Arguing against new laws on the basis that laws that are on the books already could have prevented some action isn't hypocricy even if they disapprove of the laws or are working to actively block their enforcement.

I'm not going to say that the message of the NRA is perfectly clear of anything that could twisted into being considered hypocrisy from some point of view. But their political message is quite consistently enunciated, and their actions are consistent wtih that message: they are gun nutters. It is the same with the ACLU, NARAL, WWF, PETA, the Cato Institute, etc.: if you are screaming "HYPOCRISY" against them, I think you are either being lazy or the volume of hypocrisy in the world must be overwhelming to you.

[Valmy]

I think you are either being lazy or the volume of hypocrisy in the world must be overwhelming to you.

Well if they are indeed loudly proclaiming that they value and support the enforcement of the laws, while in fact NOT supporting the enforcement of the laws...that is what hypocrisy is.  I mean that is the textbook definition.  It would be no more lazy than calling an apple an apple.  Not that I am saying the NRA is doing either of these things, I do not really follow their activities.

Besides, I am not sure every organization you listed loudly claims to support something they are in fact trying to undermine.  That is not necessarily a requirement for an advocacy organization.

[alfred russel]

I think you are either being lazy or the volume of hypocrisy in the world must be overwhelming to you.

Well if they are indeed loudly proclaiming that they value and support the enforcement of the laws, while in fact NOT supporting the enforcement of the laws...that is what hypocrisy is.  I mean that is the textbook definition.  It would be no more lazy than calling an apple an apple.  Not that I am saying the NRA is doing either of these things, I do not really follow their activities.

Besides, I am not sure every organization you listed loudly claims to support something they are in fact trying to undermine.  That is not necessarily a requirement for an advocacy organization.

After there is a serious school shooting, they make the enforcement argument. Does the NRA actually argue for stronger enforcement? I don't know. I doubt this evening I will see a bumper sticker or ad from the NRA/NRA membership "Lets enforce our gun laws"--I probably will see one telling the government getting its hands off our guns or something to that effect.

At the end of the day, I think most people have a good idea what the NRA is all about and where it will stand on relevant issues. There is a lot in Washington you can't say that about.

[mongers]

It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?

How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.

Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept.  From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.   A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.  An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.  I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.

"Armies don't need generals"

[Admiral Yi]

"Armies don't need generals"

"Can they get by with generals who have not been confirmed by the Senate?"

[The Minsky Moment]

I would have no problem with amending the Constitution to do away with confirmations.

Maybe keep it for judges, since they sit for life, not just the term of the president.

It's tangled pretty deeply in checks and balances.  The problem is that the Constitution doesn't require that the Senate confirm this particular appointment, but it's also clear that the appointment is Congress' to give to the President, not the President's to take from the Congress.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Not clear what you are saying here.  The ATF appointment used to be vested in the President alone (as per the inferior officers clause), then Congress made it subject to the normal appointment with advise and consent procedure.   Either way the appointment is the President's to make and the only difference is whether Senate advice and consent is required.  My point (and I take it that YI agrees) is that if the Senate is very aggressive with withholding consent as to Exec. branch appointments, the consequence is to undermine separation of powers by giving Congress to much power to meddle with and disrupt the Executive.  Which lo and behold is exactly what is happening in this instance.

[Admiral Yi]

Yup.

I might even go further than that.  Who gives a shit what the Senate thinks about a nominee?  It's not their fucking branch.

[11B4V]

ATF rolled into the FBI?  Suck on that one a while, gun nutters.

Yawn, oh did I say 

[Eddie Teach]

They should roll the ATF, DEA, and probably a couple others into the FBI. We've got the military to protect us from overly powerful police chiefs, don't need competing agencies.