The Federal Appointments Process et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir cette image

The Federal Appointments Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (Anglais) Relié – 1 décembre 2000


Voir les 3 formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
Relié
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 53,01 EUR 5,74

Offres spéciales et liens associés


Descriptions du produit

Book by Gerhardt Michael J


Détails sur le produit

  • Relié: 416 pages
  • Editeur : Duke University Press (1 décembre 2000)
  • Collection : Constitutional Conflicts
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ISBN-10: 0822325284
  • ISBN-13: 978-0822325284
  • Dimensions du produit: 3,2 x 15,9 x 22,9 cm
  •  Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?


En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Première phrase
IT IS CUSTOMARY to gloss over the original understanding of the federal appointments process because the relevant portion of the Constitution-the Appointments Clause-is relatively succinct and straightforward: "[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." Lire la première page
En découvrir plus
Concordance
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Index | Quatrième de couverture
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 1 commentaire
Outstanding scholarship dealing with high-level appointments - but virtually no coverage of civil service. 18 avril 2013
Par Frank T. Manheim - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
Gerhardt's in-depth scholarship is immediatey evident in his early chapter dealing with the founders' deliberations about government appointments. He points out that in none of the 13 original states did the governor have independent appointment power. In five states the governor nominated judges, but only with the consent of the legislature our its designated councils. More particularly, The first six presidents accepted the criteria of competence initiated by President Washington for presidential appointments of government employees. But Gerhardt asserts that "empirical" (statistical) studies on appointments in this period are impossible because of the lack of systematic records. One of the values of comprehensive scholarship is the ability to inform researchers of the kind of information that is not available.

Throughout the book there are probably unique and meaningful observations. The namesake of my university, George Mason, believed that appointment of judges by the president was a dangerous prerogative. The Kennedy administration had 196 appointments at the secretary to deputy-assistant secretary levels. At the midpoint of President Clinton's second term there were more than 1000 appointments requiring Senate approval. Congress liked increased appointments because more appointments meant "more bargaining chips in consulting with the president".

The great weakness in the book is that with the exception of a page referring (in rather slighting terms) to Civil Service reform (Pendleton Act of 1883) and appointments, Gerhardt is exclusively concerned with policymaking appointments. I did not even see mention of President Jimmy Carter's Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. I find this not only an gap in coverage of a critical subject. It suggests that instead of being a "classical historian", giving attention to subjects in some proportion to balanced coverage in a larger perspective, the author emphasizes mainly what specially interests him. This confirms a statement by the former historian of the Senate, Alan Baker, that after the 1960s historians abandoned their earlier tradition of taking on major political themes with broad coverage.
Ce commentaire a-t-il été utile ? Dites-le-nous


Commentaires

Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?