Slowly - I think - the Progressive Community is learning to challenge right wing framing. More and more, I think we all see that it's important not to call the "Estate Tax" a "Death Tax", for example. Some frames we argue about, such as whether the violence in Iraq should be called the "Iraq War", the "Iraq Civil War" or the "Iraq Occupation" (I think we should call it either a civil war or an occupation, because to call it simply a war dignifies what was - in my opinion - a lawless and reckless invasion).
But there is one Frame that really sticks in my craw and that I think is far too widely accepted: the idea that staff appointed, hired and administered by the Executive Branch serve "at the pleasure of the President."
I think this is one of the most damaging and pernicious verbalizations in common use today. Why can't people see that there is a huge difference between Jeff Gannon, say, who presumably served at the "pleasure" of SOMEONE in the White House, and ANY officer or employee of the United States Government, whose obligation and commitment is to the People and to the Constitution, NOT to the President or to ANY particular person.
Yet here the phrase is, on what appears to be a government site, in reference to an economic advisory group that answers to the President:
Members served "at the pleasure of the President."
"At the pleasure" seems to be such routinely used phrase, that it is virtually assumed to have statutory signifigance. But, as William Safire points out, it is not in the Constitution. It was first used in 1789, so it does go back a long way, in the United States, and it goes much further back in England, but its implications are monarchal, and thus in contradiction to the express indications in the Constitution regarding the selection process for and the purpose and responsibility of government officers.
James Oldham, a law professor, and Laura Bedard, a librarian, both at Georgetown University, said the earliest use they could find in English of the king's pleasure, meaning "assent," was in 1275; "the phrase at the king's pleasure pops up everywhere throughout the 13th through 19th centuries and is still in use today, though usually as a mere formality or part of a rite," like the opening and closing of Parliament.
Then came the 1701 Act of Settlement, settling the succession to the throne and changing the service of judges from "during the pleasure of the king" to "during good behaviour," thereby curtailing regal power. In the United States in 1789, in the first Congress's first major debate about the creation of cabinet departments, the argument was over whether and which executive officers should serve at the president's pleasure. The House member arguing that the Constitution required tenure of cabinet officers to be at the president's pleasure was James Madison. He prevailed, but the word pleasure never made it into the Constitution; in Article III, federal judges serve not at pleasure but - taking a leaf from the Brits - "during good behaviour." At pleasure first appeared in the Judiciary Act of 1789 about U.S. marshals.
... The political meaning of pleasure is far from "delight" and even further, one hopes, from sexual gratification. It means "control," which will always be shifting and disputable in a flexible, balance-of-power system. In future commissions and laws, we should strike pleasure and insert "sole authority."
The Judiciary Act of 1789 itself makes it clear that obligations of the officers (judges and marshals) involved are to be IMPARTIAL.
And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Even where the phrase "at the pleasure" is used, the context makes it clear that this does not imply that political manipulation or personal whim is involved:
And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be... to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty,... and before he enters on the duties of his office, he shall become bound for the faithful performance of the same, ...shall take ... the following oath of office: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will faithfully execute all lawful precepts directed to the marshal of the district of __________ under the authority of the United States, and true returns make, and in all things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties of the office of marshal ..."
Nor would political manipulation or personal whim be Constitutional. This is how the Constitution defines the business of the President:
...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...
That is a very narrow commission. There is no room in it for political machinations.
The Constitution adds:
... executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution...
Remember that the President is an officer of the United States, as are those a President appoints or employs. And what does the Constititution commit officers to support?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The President and all officers are committed to the opposite of political machination and personal whim.
Also, the Constitution makes it clear that Congress calls the ultimate shots in terms of determining what officers will do and how they will be evaluated:
The Congress shall have power...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Also, Congress calls the shots as to who officers will be:
The President ... 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.
Remember that
The President ...shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,...
and that
The Congress shall have power...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The President himself or herself is an officer of the United States, the Chief Officer.
There is no way to interprete the Constitution as giving the President the kind of latitude regarding officers of the government that "at the pleasure" has been taken to imply. Yes, the President gets to designate the who, and even that only as long as the Senate agrees. What an officer does and how an officer's performance is judged is NOT soley up to the President. Any officer in the government must serve the well being of the People, the preservation of the Constitution and the rules established by Congress.
Basically, the President can provide the list of names from which Congress must pick officers, however grudgingly or ungrudgingly he provides that list and Congress picks; however responsibly or irresponsibly he provides that list and Congress picks.
In practise, this gives the President a lot of latitude, since the government does NEED officers, appointed in a timely way. The process of selection cannot go on forever, and the President must have officers he or she can work with effectively, so it behooves Congress to go along with a President most of the time. But he or she must be VERY careful in both selections and dismissals, if he or she doesn't want to run afoul of the directives of the Constitution and of Congress (unless Congress chooses to be complicit in irresponsible or even harmful selections and dismissals).
In short, choosing an officer for the government is a grave responsiblity, NOT a political opportunity. The safety and wellbeing of the country rides on every choice, ESPECIALLY in the case of prosecutors, but also in the case of regulators, military leaders, negotiators and almost any other government officer one can imagine. A President who does not faithfully attempt to choose officers for the good of the country is utterly failing in one of their most important functions and MUST be impeached.
So we must not stand for the use of the word "pleasure" outside the context of private pursuits, unless it is defined very narrowly, or unless it is to admire the pleasure a good President would take in doing his or her best to rise above personal and partisan interests, so far as possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This government site offers historical insight into the complications of the nomination process, the interplay between President and Congress on nominations:
http://www.archives.gov/...