1 Shortly after the 2008 election, President Obama appointed outspoken and controversial House member Rahm Emanuel to lead his White House as chief of staff, the head of the Executive Office of the President. The selection drew criticism from Republican leaders, including House minority leader John Boehner, who remarked that the selection "is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center." Which of the following explains how Congress could legitimately respond to the appointment? (A) The Senate could refuse to confirm the appointment. (B) The House of Representatives could filibuster the nomination. (C) The Rules Committee could refuse to release the bill that made the appointment. (D) Members of Congress could issue statements opposing the appointment but have no formal power to block it. (D) (B) (A)
Upstudy AI Solution
Answer
Solution
Answered by UpStudy AI and reviewed by a Professional Tutor
Explain 
Simplify this solution Bonus Knowledge
Rahm Emanuel's appointment as chief of staff was indeed a hot topic in the political landscape, noted for sparking debates about bipartisanship. One commonly overlooked aspect is that the president's chief of staff does not require Senate confirmation. This gives Congress limited avenues to challenge such appointments, marking a unique feature of the Executive branch's structure. In terms of the House of Representatives, while they can express dissenting views and publicly criticize appointments, they do not have the power to filibuster, as that tactic is exclusive to the Senate. Thus, they could certainly rally opinions, but ultimately, it's the Senate that holds sway in the confirmation of positions that require it.
