CHECKS on the PRESIDENCY [AP Gov Review Unit 2 Topic 5 (2.5)]

Heimler's History

3 chapters6 takeaways9 key terms5 questions

Overview

This video explains the checks and balances on presidential power, focusing on the Senate's role in confirming presidential appointments. It details the varying levels of scrutiny for different types of appointments, from ambassadors to cabinet members and federal judges. The video highlights how the Senate's 'advice and consent' power, particularly for lifetime judicial appointments, can lead to significant political conflict and serves as a crucial check on the president's agenda and long-term ideological influence.

How was this?

Save this permanently with flashcards, quizzes, and AI chat

Chapters

The president's agenda often creates conflict with Congress, particularly the Senate.
The Senate's constitutional power of 'advice and consent' is a key check on presidential authority.
This power allows the Senate to approve or reject presidential appointments and treaties.

Understanding this tension is crucial because it reveals how the separation of powers prevents any one branch from becoming too dominant.

The inherent conflict between the president's desire to implement their agenda and the Senate's role in approving key personnel and policies.

Presidential appointments vary in the level of Senate scrutiny they receive.
Ambassadorial appointments are typically rubber-stamped by the Senate.
White House staff appointments do not require Senate approval.
Cabinet appointments require Senate approval but are usually confirmed unless there's significant controversy.

This differential treatment shows how the Senate focuses its oversight on positions with the most significant policy implications.

The Senate usually approves ambassadors without much debate, unlike more contentious cabinet positions.

Cabinet appointments can become highly contentious, sometimes requiring the Vice President to break a tie vote.
Judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, are the most contentious due to their lifetime tenure.
Lifetime judicial appointments allow presidents to influence policy and ideology long after their term ends.
The Senate's rejection of nominees, like Robert Bork, demonstrates a significant check on presidential power.

The high stakes of judicial appointments mean the Senate's 'advice and consent' power can profoundly shape the judiciary's ideological balance for decades.

The rejection of Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, a process so intense it led to the term 'Borking,' or the near tie-vote confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

Key takeaways

1The Senate's 'advice and consent' power is a primary constitutional check on presidential appointments.
2The level of Senate scrutiny for appointments is directly related to the position's potential impact on policy and ideology.
3Judicial appointments are particularly significant because they are for life, allowing presidents to exert long-term influence.
4Presidential appointments, especially to the judiciary, can be a source of intense political conflict between the executive and legislative branches.
5Even when nominees are qualified, the Senate can reject them based on political or ideological grounds, or perceived personal failings.
6The Vice President plays a crucial role in the Senate by breaking tie votes on confirmations.

Key terms

Checks and balancesPresidential appointmentsSenate advice and consentAmbassadorsCabinetFederal judgesSupreme CourtConfirmation processBorking

Test your understanding

1What is the primary constitutional power the Senate uses to check presidential appointments?
2Why do presidential appointments to the federal judiciary generate more conflict than appointments to ambassadorships?
3How can a president use judicial appointments to influence policy beyond their term in office?
4What role does the Vice President play in the Senate's confirmation process?
5Explain the significance of the term 'Borking' in the context of presidential appointments.