Channels, Fall 2019

Channels • 2019 • Volume 4 • Number 1 Page 11 on more as they pertain specifically to the appointment power. Moreover, special references to the appointment power, advice and consent, or Supreme Court will provide a more targeted approach. In doing so, historical context, documented assumptions, and intentions underlying the Appointments Clause will become more apparent, giving clearer insight into an original understanding. Additionally, a critical evaluation of the Founders’ writings will affirm credibility and reliability in the authenticity of their intentions. Moreover, the original questions posed at the beginning of the paper will be better answered according to the texts themselves. As a reminder, the first question considered what the Founders intended for the Senate’s role in the Supreme Court confirmation process as developed through the Constitutional Convention proceedings and other manuscripts like the Federalist Papers. The second question surveyed the Framers’ view on human nature which will be best understood in light of the early writings and Federalist Papers. Additionally, the original election method for U.S. Senators will be best understood in light of the Federalist Papers as the Founders expressed a desire for insulation for the Senate. One can define a ‘case study’ as “an approach capable of examining simple or complex phenomenon, with units of analysis varying from single individuals to large institutions to world- changing events; it entails using a variety of lines of action in its data-gathering segments and can meaningfully make use of and contribute to the application theory” (Lune & Berg, 160). Moreover, in using the case study approach, historical analysis will be deployed to garner historical significance of the writings of the Founders and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and ratification process. Such a case study can also provide critical insight for areas of institutional shortcomings and areas for potential reform. In doing so, other questions that served as guiding questions will be further answered in as the advice and consent function was applied early in the nascent republic’s years. Moreover, there will be more clarity in understanding what the Founders considered appropriate in evaluating the Supreme Court nominees, as well as understanding further the expectation — not obligation — that the Senate would consider the nominee through a formal vote by the Senate body. Content Analysis The Appointments Clause An analysis of the text of the Appointments Clause will reveal assumptions and clues into the Founders’ plan for the appointment power. Below is the Appointments Clause, which is found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: 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… Based on the text alone, one can make a number of apparent assumptions. First, the Appointments Clause itself is in Article II of the Constitution. It lays out the requirements for the Executive branch. The Founders anticipated the Executive would initiate the use of the appointment power with the words “The President…shall…appoint” (emphasis added). Here, the Founders required presidential