Which presidential cabinet picks require congressional approval? Which new presidential cabinet position require congressional approval?
All of them. The "cabinet" refers to the heads of the executive departments listed at 5 USC 101. "Cabinet" isn't defined in the Constitution or legislation, but this interpretation is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary (cabinet), the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and some discussion in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976). All of these are consistent with an interpretation of "cabinet" to mean heads of departments of the executive branch. All cabinet appointments require the advice and consent of the Senate (except for recess appointments). The requirement for advice and consent of the Senate is given in individual statutes relating to each department. For the Secretary of State, for example, see 22 U.S. Code § 2651a (a) (2): The Secretary, the Deputy Secretary of State, and the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. That statute also happens to require some deputies to gain the consent of the Senate. For the Secretary of the Treasury, see 31 U.S. Code § 301: [...] The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. There are hundreds of non-cabinet positions that require the advice and consent of the Senate. These are presented in the report, "Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations".
First, there are many versions of Robert's Rules of Order: here is an early free version. §26(c) suggests a procedure for creation of a committee to draft resolutions, and §53 contemplates other (standing) committees. Nothing therein suggests that there are restrictions on the right of a member to vote, in terms of a mandatory adjournment. However, RRO is not a Universal Organizational Bylaws, so in order to have any force, it must be adopted as part of the bylaws (in whole or part). It especially cannot dictate who is eligible to vote – that is a detail that has to be in the organization's bylaws.
With the president, no. In the case where the election results cannot be certified, a safe harbor provision (3 U.S. Sec. 5) allows, if not requires, the state to appoint the electors by alternate means. Under most conceivable circumstances, the process ends here. However, if the House of Representatives refuses to accept the validity of those electors, and the president-elect still has a majority of the Electoral College, the state will simply have no say in the president's election. If rejecting those electors leaves no candidate with a majority of the Electoral College, the House of Representatives itself will elect the president per the process in Art. II of the constitution, as amended by Amend. 12. If the president-elect makes it past all these considerations to the oath of office, the only removal mechanism is impeachment. With other state and federal offices, each state, as well as the federal government, has its own laws regarding disputed elections. But one remedy would have to be a new election.
Congress has the power to propose amendments, but not to enact them. Amendments are only enacted once they're ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. And yes, there's no reason to think it would be unconstitutional for 2/3rds of each house of Congress plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures to make fundamental changes to the Constitution like eliminating other branches of government. The only limit on amendments that's still in effect is that states can't be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.
No punishment followed because those policies are not the law, and, even it was found out earlier, no Inspector General would have the authority to dismiss Mrs. Cliton, it's POTUS's prerogative, as I understand it. That is true for maybe 10 people max in a government department. For the tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who weren't appointed by the President to serve at their pleasure, violating policies can lead to suspension, fines, or dismissal.
It's not a violation because Congress created and gave the Federal Reserve the power to issue Federal Reserve Notes in the Federal Reserve Act which created the Federal Reserve. More here on the relationship between Congress and the Fed: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-27/how-congress-governs-the-federal-reserve.
Under article II, section 1 of the Constitution: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The 25th Amendment doesn't cover the case of the President and Vice-President becoming incapacitated simultaneously, so instead the original section of the Constitution can be consulted. And unlike the 25th Amendment, this is quite clear: Congress passes a law deciding who the acting President is. The current law is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War - none of them were initiated with an official vote by congress. This is inaccurate. President Truman did break from precedent when he initiated a &quot;police action&quot; (read: not a war) on the Korean peninsula in mid-1950, and perhaps took advantage of an impending July recess when that &quot;police action&quot; started to look more and more like a &quot;war&quot;. There were however plenty of votes that Congress held during the remainder of the year that supported the actions that President Truman was taking. There were quite a few people serving in congress that raised a fuss about it at the time, but ultimately went along and funded the operations. Congress passed H.J. RES 1145, dated August 7th, 1964 after a US ship was attacked in international waters (the Gulf of Tonkin, which is why this legislation is more informally known as the &quot;Gulf of Tonkin resolution&quot;). This gave President Johnson authority to increase U.S. involvement in Vietnam. After awhile, Congress decided to retake some control back from President Nixon when they passed the &quot;War Powers Resolution&quot; in 1973. From their point of view this gave the Commander-in-Chief the power to protect American interests while at the same time limiting the scope of any action possible by placing a time limit on what the President can do unilaterally. A President can commit forces if they feel it necessary, but must notify Congress within 48 hours of doing so and only allows action to proceed for a total maximum of 90 days. After that, for any military involvement by the United States to continue, Congress must authorize it. Because of that legislation, Congress now passes what people call &quot;AUMFs&quot; (authorization for the use of military force). Desert Storm was authorized by a bill titled &quot;Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678&quot;. Military operations in Afghanistan were also approved in a similar way with a bill titled &quot;Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States&quot; which was signed into law by President Bush on September 18th, 2001 (one week after 9/11). All of this is to say that Congress has, in effect, ceded some of the power granted to them under the Constitution to the Office of the President, but not without reason. The ultimate answer to your title question, however, is that we have absolutely no idea. The only people with standing that can challenge in a court of law any given action would be Congress itself, and it has never chosen to do so. And, really, why would it when it can just pass legislation targeting anything the President does that they don't at least tacitly agree to? That way they can get what they want without having to worry how a squeamish Supreme Court may rule. It doesn't help matters that pretty much every single President since Nixon has in some form argued that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Additionally, there's not a single member of any branch of the Armed Forces which would listen to orders given to them by any member of Congress which contradict orders given to them by the President because doing so is likely to land them in jail. What we've more or less settled in to is that yes, Congress controls the power of &quot;war making&quot; by controlling the funding of the operations themselves, and the President can fulfill their obligation to protect and defend the United States and it's interests regardless of whether Congress is currently back home kissing babies at the moment. Below is a non-exhaustive list of pre-World War II military actions that the US participated in or against foreign territories without a formal declaration of war: &quot;The Indian Wars&quot;* First Barbary War (1801-1805) Philippine–American War (1899-1902) Pancho Villa Expedition (1916) *- The Indian Wars is actually a 300+ year long intermittent conflict between European Settlers (after awhile referred to as &quot;Americans&quot;) and different groups of Native Americans who had lived on the continent for thousands of years. This one bullet point could easily be deconstructed into dozens of individual conflicts.