HOME
        TheInfoList






This language was written at the Constitutional Convention as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegate

This language was written at the Constitutional Convention as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the president, but others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the Congress. Requiring the president to gain the advice and consent of the Senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government.

Under the <

Under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, upon the removal of the president due to incapacity, appointments to the office of vice president are confirmed by a majority vote in both houses of Congress, instead of just the Senate.

While several framers of the U.S. Constitution, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, believed that the required role of the Senate is to advise the president after the nomination has been made by the president,[1][2] Roger Sherman believed that advice before nomination could still be helpful.[3] President George Washington took the position that pre-nomination advice was allowable but not mandatory.[4] The notion that pre-nomination advice is optional has developed into the unification of the "advice" portion of the power with the "consent" portion, although several Presidents have consulted informally with Senators over nominations and treaties.

Use today

Typically, a congressional hearing is held to question an appointee prior to a committee vote. If the nominee is approved by the relevant committee, the nomination is sent to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. The actual motion adopted by the Senate when exercising the power is "to advise and consent".[5][6] For appointments, a majority of Senators present are needed to pass a motion "to advise and consent". A filibuster requiring a three-fifths vote to override, as well as other similar delaying tactics, have been used to require higher vote tallies in the past.

On November 21, 2013, the Democratic Party, led by then-majority leader Harry Reid, overrode the filibuster of a nomination with a simple majority vote to Harry Reid, overrode the filibuster of a nomination with a simple majority vote to change the rules.[7] As a result, for instance, judicial nominees to federal courts and a president's executive-branch nominations can be freed up for a confirmation vote by a simple majority vote of the Senate. However, he left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees.

In April 2017, the Republican Party, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, did the same for Supreme Court nominations, allowing Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench, despite what might have otherwise been a successful Democratic filibuster.

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination was controversial because of late allegations against him about instances of sexual assault in high school. Kavanaugh accused Democrats of opposing his nomination by replacing "advice and consent" with "search and destroy".[8]