Acting Officers in High Level Positions

[Rexedgar]

I realize that this doesn’t involve the Constitution directly. I have scanned the Federal Vacancies Act of 1998 and my eyes began to gloss over. My question involves the “acting” title before many officers in this Administration; I make out that the “acting” designation is good for a period of 210 days. What has to happen after 210 days? Secondly, in the case of the SecDef, does the next “acting” get a fresh 210 days?


Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Wikipedia

 

[Gary]

I realize that this doesn’t involve the Constitution directly. I have scanned the Federal Vacancies Act of 1998 and my eyes began to gloss over. My question involves the “acting” title before many officers in this Administration; I make out that the “acting” designation is good for a period of 210 days. What has to happen after 210 days? Secondly, in the case of the SecDef, does the next “acting” get a fresh 210 days?


Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Wikipedia

As far as I know, that's the way it works and any clown will do in some cases. Some clowns require vetting, but that isn't a problem with a Grim Reaper Senate that refuses to govern the country.

Someone acting is the best you are going to get in the tRump administration. No one in their right mind wants his jobs. tRump only uses people and lawyers to defend him, he doesn't care about legal advice like what is legal. He's ate too many potato chips of crime to change his ways.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I realize that this doesn’t involve the Constitution directly. I have scanned the Federal Vacancies Act of 1998 and my eyes began to gloss over. My question involves the “acting” title before many officers in this Administration; I make out that the “acting” designation is good for a period of 210 days. What has to happen after 210 days? Secondly, in the case of the SecDef, does the next “acting” get a fresh 210 days?

Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Wikipedia

I believe the next "acting" gets a fresh 210 days. However, we should also distinguish between how it should work based on relevant law against what is really happening and who is (or is not) complaining about compliance with relevant law.

It is also worthy of note that the law is written from the point of view of both scenarios... both "acting" being a short term assignment, and "acting" being a short term assignment on the way to the conformation process. Not every "acting" whatever is with the intention of permanently filling a vacancy (as defined by the Act.) Also note there are a series of exceptions that could arguably be exploited to unknown conclusions depending on the President in question, the position in question, and the disposition of the Senate that may or may not have any ****s to give over what the President does.

Good luck, but these Acts are only as good as who does the enforcement and to what ends.

 

[TrueScotsman]

I realize that this doesn’t involve the Constitution directly. I have scanned the Federal Vacancies Act of 1998 and my eyes began to gloss over. My question involves the “acting” title before many officers in this Administration; I make out that the “acting” designation is good for a period of 210 days. What has to happen after 210 days? Secondly, in the case of the SecDef, does the next “acting” get a fresh 210 days?


Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Wikipedia

Ah, the questions that arise from the madness of the Trump era..

 

[TomFitz]

Ah, the questions that arise from the madness of the Trump era..

Indeed!

 

[clapee]

I realize that this doesn’t involve the Constitution directly. I have scanned the Federal Vacancies Act of 1998 and my eyes began to gloss over. My question involves the “acting” title before many officers in this Administration; I make out that the “acting” designation is good for a period of 210 days. What has to happen after 210 days? Secondly, in the case of the SecDef, does the next “acting” get a fresh 210 days?


Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Wikipedia

Technically, an acting officer could serve indefinitely if a nomination remains pending in the Senate. However, Senate rules automatically return a nomination that has neither been confirmed nor rejected at the end of a session, or upon an adjournment or recess exceeding 30 days. So, I think the result is an acting officer could serve in office for 2 years and 7 months without ever being approved by the senate. And then, someone else would have to be appointed.

 

[Cordelier]

This isn't a legal argument, per se, but more of a practical one - acting officials aren't going to be as effective as permanent officials, for various reasons - most important of which is policy continuity. To give you an example of what I'm talking about, here's an excerpt from Nicholas Katzenbach's oral history interview with Paige Mulhulland on November 12, 1968:

Mulholland: After President Johnson took over, Mr. Robert Kennedy served on as Attorney General into the end of 1964, is that right, and then you were Acting Attorney General for about five or six months?

Katzenbach: Let's see--actually from some time early in September, [1964] the first week in September, to February 13, [1965] I guess.

Mulholland: Are there any particular problems involved in trying to run a department like that, as an "Acting" Attorney General rather than as the Attorney General?

Katzenbach: Some. The sorts of problems that you have are to some extent morale within the department which you have to worry about, at least after a certain point. You don't have a deputy which means you've got to pull a bit of a double load; you're just missing an important cog in the machinery; and finally, there are the problems of whether or not you ought to make decisions if you're not going to be the Attorney General, if somebody else is going to come in. Are these decisions that ought to be left for somebody else that might see a situation somewhat differently? So there are some problems to doing it.