Obama, A Damn Liar

[Cancel 2016.2]

I said the Constitution does not specify the period of time required for the Senate to be in recess for the President to exercise his recess appointment powers. Unless you can show me otherwise, under the Constitution the length of the recess is irrelevant.

LMAO... again dear lil hack... read the piece I linked to. It addresses your nonsense. There is a LOT the Constitution does not specify, the House and Senate both have many rules and procedures not mentioned in the Constitution. Again dear lil hack, you are supporting a position by Obama that is going to lead to future Presidents ever expanding the use of recess appointments to the point that there will be no Congressional oversight.

 

[Alias]

The leaders of Both houses need to agree to adjournment. They didn't. Obama cannnot appoint anyone because congress is not adjourned.

Obama is acting against the Law of the Land.

Very simple shit.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... again dear lil hack... read the piece I linked to. It addresses your nonsense. There is a LOT the Constitution does not specify, the House and Senate both have many rules and procedures not mentioned in the Constitution. Again dear lil hack, you are supporting a position by Obama that is going to lead to future Presidents ever expanding the use of recess appointments to the point that there will be no Congressional oversight.

I read the piece. It doesn't change my position. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the amount of time the Senate must be in recess before the president can make a recess appointment. And if the Senate doesn't like it, it can changes its rules accordingly.

For the bulk of our history this wasn't an issue because Congress didn't fuck around to prevent recess appointments being made. The only folks to blame for the "ever expanding" use of recess appointments are the folks in Congress that thought it was a good idea to try to thwart presidential authority by never recessing. Before that, the President always had the authority to make recess appointments whenever Congress recessed.

This is a foreseeable consequence of the decision to block that power. And again, if Congress doesn't like it, they can either stop fucking around and we can return to the normal situation where presidents appoint people when Congress goes on recess, or it can change the rules.

By the way, as I'm sure you read in that piece, St. Ronnie made 243 recess appointments during his two terms, a pace of 30 per year. Obama has made 29, fewer than 10 per year.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

More patented horseshit from the Supreme Douchebag...

such an intelligent rebuttal. way to take down my points, point by point.

LOL

 

[Bonestorm]

My point dear lil hack is that Obama went along with the VERY SAME TECHNIQUE HE IS NOW BITCHING ABOUT.

So? Unless he said that Bush shouldn't counter the Senate's move, I don't see what the issue is.

So he circumvented the Senate because he couldn't force them to accept who he wanted. Understood.

You should go to DC and explain what you know to the lawyers there who think this is not legal. They would be grateful to have such a knowledgeable person like you on hand.

Again, try reading the piece I linked to... you might actually learn something.

Hilarious that you try to pull rank on me with unnamed, unsourced "D.C. lawyers." I guess it's what you have to resort to when you cannot counter my arguments directly.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I read the piece. It doesn't change my position. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the amount of time the Senate must be in recess before the president can make a recess appointment. And if the Senate doesn't like it, it can changes its rules accordingly.

ROFLMAO.... once again dolt... the vast majority of the rules in the House and Senate are not spelled out in the Constitution. The Senate ALREADY has the rules in place. THAT is what people are trying to tell moronic party hacks like you.

For the bulk of our history this wasn't an issue because Congress didn't fuck around to prevent recess appointments being made. The only folks to blame for the "ever expanding" use of recess appointments are the folks in Congress that thought it was a good idea to try to thwart presidential authority by never recessing. Before that, the President always had the authority to make recess appointments whenever Congress recessed.

Yes, we call those people Democrats. The ones that pulled the same stunt you now bitch about to prevent Bush from using the recess appointment. I don't recall you bitching about the move back then... why is that?

This is a foreseeable consequence of the decision to block that power. And again, if Congress doesn't like it, they can either stop fucking around and we can return to the normal situation where presidents appoint people when Congress goes on recess, or it can change the rules.

So adamant about it NOW. Yet nothing from you when the Dems did it to Bush.

By the way, as I'm sure you read in that piece, St. Ronnie made 243 recess appointments during his two terms, a pace of 30 per year. Obama has made 29, fewer than 10 per year.

It is not the recess appointment itself that matters, it is the fact that Obama is stretching the use of it in the manner in which he is. But I know... you desperately want to protect your messiah from criticism.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So? Unless he said that Bush shouldn't counter the Senate's move, I don't see what the issue is.

Of course you don't see the issue, you have your head up Obama's ass and he can do no wrong in your view.

Hilarious that you try to pull rank on me with unnamed, unsourced "D.C. lawyers." I guess it's what you have to resort to when you cannot counter my arguments directly.

Pull rank? You truly crack me up. Your 'arguments' have been nothing more than 'Obama is my god, he can do no wrong'.

I have shown you a piece that highlights what a recess appointment is and how it has been used in the past. It also addresses the very issue we are discussing, but your rebuttal was 'It not in Constitution so I don't care, because Obama my God, he can do no wrong'.

 

[Phantasmal]

I think it is funny that the Republicans are upset over this, how many times have other Presidents done this and they supported it.

They didn't want Elizabeth Warren, they don't want anyone in the position to help the little guys.

 

[Phantasmal]

I read the piece. It doesn't change my position. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the amount of time the Senate must be in recess before the president can make a recess appointment. And if the Senate doesn't like it, it can changes its rules accordingly.

For the bulk of our history this wasn't an issue because Congress didn't fuck around to prevent recess appointments being made. The only folks to blame for the "ever expanding" use of recess appointments are the folks in Congress that thought it was a good idea to try to thwart presidential authority by never recessing. Before that, the President always had the authority to make recess appointments whenever Congress recessed.

This is a foreseeable consequence of the decision to block that power. And again, if Congress doesn't like it, they can either stop fucking around and we can return to the normal situation where presidents appoint people when Congress goes on recess, or it can change the rules.

By the way, as I'm sure you read in that piece, St. Ronnie made 243 recess appointments during his two terms, a pace of 30 per year. Obama has made 29, fewer than 10 per year.

But, but, but it was Reagan and he was god.

 

[Phantasmal]

I read the piece. It doesn't change my position. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the amount of time the Senate must be in recess before the president can make a recess appointment. And if the Senate doesn't like it, it can changes its rules accordingly.

For the bulk of our history this wasn't an issue because Congress didn't fuck around to prevent recess appointments being made. The only folks to blame for the "ever expanding" use of recess appointments are the folks in Congress that thought it was a good idea to try to thwart presidential authority by never recessing. Before that, the President always had the authority to make recess appointments whenever Congress recessed.

This is a foreseeable consequence of the decision to block that power. And again, if Congress doesn't like it, they can either stop fucking around and we can return to the normal situation where presidents appoint people when Congress goes on recess, or it can change the rules.

By the way, as I'm sure you read in that piece, St. Ronnie made 243 recess appointments during his two terms, a pace of 30 per year. Obama has made 29, fewer than 10 per year.

Bush made over 170. It is a common practice and Obama has done it less than his predecessors.

 

[apple0154]

and you think that explanation excuses violating the constitution or law?

When comparing the Dems and Repubs it's a very important difference to note.

 

[Alias]

 

[Bonestorm]

ROFLMAO.... once again dolt... the vast majority of the rules in the House and Senate are not spelled out in the Constitution. The Senate ALREADY has the rules in place. THAT is what people are trying to tell moronic party hacks like you.

Which Senate rule prohibits the President from exercising his constitutional authority to make recess appointments during recesses shorter than three days? I'd love to see it.

Yes, we call those people Democrats. The ones that pulled the same stunt you now bitch about to prevent Bush from using the recess appointment. I don't recall you bitching about the move back then... why is that?

There are a few things. First, the Democrats controlled the Senate and as such could determine how and when the Senate was to recess. Now, the House is dictating when the Senate can recess and for how long. Basically, the House is trying to prevent the Senate from going out of session. If it were up to the Senate alone, the Senate would recess in the ordinary course and the recess appointments would be made and there would be no issue.

In addition, the Senate Republicans have used the filibuster on an unprecedented scale, blocking pretty much everything and all appointments Obama has made. They have turned the Senate into a supermajoritarian body. It isn't one and was not designed to be one. Moreover, the Senate Republicans are using the filibuster as a means to achieve legislative changes that they cannot accomplish on their own. In the case of the CFPB, they do not want it to function unless legislation is passed to change the way it operates and so they filibuster any director so that it cannot operate. That's ridiculous. The law is the law and a director needs to be in place to execute it. Where the Senate Republicans are blocking the ability of the executive branch to carry out it's constitutional mandate to faithfully execute the law (as is also the case with the NLRB, which has too few members to constitute a quorum), the President is well within his powers to make recess appointments to fulfill his constitutional obligations.

So adamant about it NOW. Yet nothing from you when the Dems did it to Bush.

That's not true. But even if it were, the difference is that the Democratic majority in the Senate prevented the Senate from recessing. Now, the Senate minority is blocking all appointments and the House is preventing the Senate from recessing. The circumstances are totally different. Even still, if Bush had exercised his power to make recess appointments during recesses shorter than three days, I wouldn't have complained and neither would you.

It is not the recess appointment itself that matters, it is the fact that Obama is stretching the use of it in the manner in which he is. But I know... you desperately want to protect your messiah from criticism.

First, Obama is stretching anything. As I'm sure you are aware, Teddy Roosevelt recess appointed 160 people during a recess of less than three days. I'd say the power was stretched pretty far before Obama did anything. To the extent that Obama's move was a departure from recent practice, it was done in response to a departure from recent practice with respect to congressional recesses and with respect to use of the filibuster and is to be expected.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bush made over 170. It is a common practice and Obama has done it less than his predecessors.

Once again, a lefty demonstrates their ability to completely miss the point. No one has a problem with a normal recess appointment. Where the question lies is in how THIS recess appointment was done. Tell us Rana, since Dung won't address it, how many of those by Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc... were done in THIS manner? Can you tell us that? Have you even bothered to read WHAT the difference is? Just curious. Because Dung doesn't care. According to Dung a President can recess appoint a person any time the Senate is not actually in the chamber.

 

[Bonestorm]

Once again, a lefty demonstrates their ability to completely miss the point. No one has a problem with a normal recess appointment. Where the question lies is in how THIS recess appointment was done. Tell us Rana, since Dung won't address it, how many of those by Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc... were done in THIS manner? Can you tell us that? Have you even bothered to read WHAT the difference is? Just curious. Because Dung doesn't care. According to Dung a President can recess appoint a person any time the Senate is not actually in the chamber.

Reagan, Clinton and GHWB never had the problem of the House preventing the Senate from recessing for more than three days. They didn't have to appoint people during recesses of fewer than three days because Congress recessed for more than three days routinely. As for GWB, he didn't recess appoint anyone during a recess of fewer than three days.

And what I said, SF, and what you have yet to rebut, is that the Constitution does not specify the length of time the Senate must be in recess before the presidential power to recess appoint arises. It doesn't.

 

[poet]

Once again, a lefty demonstrates their ability to completely miss the point. No one has a problem with a normal recess appointment. Where the question lies is in how THIS recess appointment was done. Tell us Rana, since Dung won't address it, how many of those by Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc... were done in THIS manner? Can you tell us that? Have you even bothered to read WHAT the difference is? Just curious. Because Dung doesn't care. According to Dung a President can recess appoint a person any time the Senate is not actually in the chamber.

Call it retaliation for the Republican Congress' unprecedented "foot-dragging" at any and all of Barack Obama's initiatives, and their holding "raising the debt ceiling" hostage, until cuts were made in social programs, while preserving the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Don't bring no mess, won't be no mess.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Which Senate rule prohibits the President from exercising his constitutional authority to make recess appointments during recesses shorter than three days? I'd love to see it.

There are a few things. First, the Democrats controlled the Senate and as such could determine how and when the Senate was to recess. Now, the House is dictating when the Senate can recess and for how long. Basically, the House is trying to prevent the Senate from going out of session. If it were up to the Senate alone, the Senate would recess in the ordinary course and the recess appointments would be made and there would be no issue.

So you admit that they were not recessed. Thanks. You are starting to get it.

BOTH chambers have the ability to block the other from recess. It is there as a safeguard. But I am sure you already knew that... just conveniently ignoring it. Right?

In addition, the Senate Republicans have used the filibuster on an unprecedented scale, blocking pretty much everything and all appointments Obama has made. They have turned the Senate into a supermajoritarian body. It isn't one and was not designed to be one. Moreover, the Senate Republicans are using the filibuster as a means to achieve legislative changes that they cannot accomplish on their own. In the case of the CFPB, they do not want it to function unless legislation is passed to change the way it operates and so they filibuster any director so that it cannot operate. That's ridiculous. The law is the law and a director needs to be in place to execute it. Where the Senate Republicans are blocking the ability of the executive branch to carry out it's constitutional mandate to faithfully execute the law (as is also the case with the NLRB, which has too few members to constitute a quorum), the President is well within his powers to make recess appointments to fulfill his constitutional obligations.

And AGAIN... did the Dems or did they not, block President Bush from appointing members to the NLRB? Did we not JUST go through a couple years where the NLRB didn't have enough to constitute a quorum? Were you bitching and moaning about it then Dung? Or were you applauding it because it meant the candidates would have to be vetted by the Senate?

I think we all know the answer.

That's not true. But even if it were, the difference is that the Democratic majority in the Senate prevented the Senate from recessing. Now, the Senate minority is blocking all appointments and the House is preventing the Senate from recessing. The circumstances are totally different. Even still, if Bush had exercised his power to make recess appointments during recesses shorter than three days, I wouldn't have complained and neither would you.

The other difference is that the Senate and President were of opposing parties. In this case they are of the SAME party. In BOTH cases it is the party opposite the President that blocked the Senate from recessing. PERIOD.

Yes, you would have bitched and moaned like the good little Dem parrot that you are. You would have harped on and on and on about how he was breaking the law... because that is what your masters would have told you to say.

First, Obama is stretching anything. As I'm sure you are aware, Teddy Roosevelt recess appointed 160 people during a recess of less than three days. I'd say the power was stretched pretty far before Obama did anything. To the extent that Obama's move was a departure from recent practice, it was done in response to a departure from recent practice with respect to congressional recesses and with respect to use of the filibuster and is to be expected.

LMAO... do you have examples from the past 100 years?

 

[Bonestorm]

So you admit that they were not recessed. Thanks. You are starting to get it.

BOTH chambers have the ability to block the other from recess. It is there as a safeguard. But I am sure you already knew that... just conveniently ignoring it. Right?

Actually, no. The Senate recessed on Tuesday and goes back into session today. And no, the House cannot prevent the Senate from recessing. It can merely prevent it from recessing for more than three days.

By the way, you may want to check your Article II, Section 4 as to the powers of the president when the two houses of Congress disagree as the time for adjournment. Your "safeguard" argument is total horseshit.

And AGAIN... did the Dems or did they not, block President Bush from appointing members to the NLRB? Did we not JUST go through a couple years where the NLRB didn't have enough to constitute a quorum? Were you bitching and moaning about it then Dung? Or were you applauding it because it meant the candidates would have to be vetted by the Senate?

I think we all know the answer.

No, I wasn't bitching and moaning. But I wouldn't have bitched and moaned if, in response, Bush exercised his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. Nor would you have opposed it if he did.

The other difference is that the Senate and President were of opposing parties. In this case they are of the SAME party. In BOTH cases it is the party opposite the President that blocked the Senate from recessing. PERIOD.

I don't understand your point here. If it were up to Harry Reid, the Senate would be in recess and Obama would recess appoint in the ordinary course.

Yes, you would have bitched and moaned like the good little Dem parrot that you are. You would have harped on and on and on about how he was breaking the law... because that is what your masters would have told you to say.

One thing we all know for certain is that you wouldn't have opposed it if Bush did it. PERIOD.

LMAO... do you have examples from the past 100 years?

Did the Constitution change in some meaningful respect in the past 100 years? And, like I have explained to you, congressional acts to prevent recess appointments arose only in the past few years. Prior to that recess appointments during recesses of fewer than three days were unnecessary because the Senate recessed for more than three days routinely.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, no. The Senate recessed on Tuesday and goes back into session today. And no, the House cannot prevent the Senate from recessing. It can merely prevent it from recessing for more than three days.

By the way, you may want to check your Article II, Section 4 as to the powers of the president when the two houses of Congress disagree as the time for adjournment. Your "safeguard" argument is total horseshit.

Sorry, the Senate was never in recess. You really should read up on these things.

No, I wasn't bitching and moaning. But I wouldn't have bitched and moaned if, in response, Bush exercised his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. Nor would you have opposed it if he did.

Exactly. It wasn't the non stop bullshit of 'they not playing nice' that you continue to espouse today simply because it is the Reps blocking your master instead of the Dems blocking Bush.

I don't understand your point here. If it were up to Harry Reid, the Senate would be in recess and Obama would recess appoint in the ordinary course.

There is a lot you don't understand. I would suggest you pull your head out of Obama's ass, take a deep breath of fresh air and educate yourself on what is going on.

One thing we all know for certain is that you wouldn't have opposed it if Bush did it. PERIOD.

Aww that is cute. Total bullshit. But cute.

Unlike you, I am not beholden to a party. Nor to an incompetent President... which is exactly what Bush was and Obama is.

Did the Constitution change in some meaningful respect in the past 100 years? And, like I have explained to you, congressional acts to prevent recess appointments arose only in the past few years. Prior to that recess appointments during recesses of fewer than three days were unnecessary because the Senate recessed for more than three days routinely.

So again, you are bitching now because the Reps are using the same tricks the Dems used and now because it is your master not getting his way you are pissed? Understood.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noa...ppointment-sure-doesnt-look-constitutional-me

Another article for you to ignore. You will like his follow up article describing how Obama can get out of this.

 

[apple0154]

If Obama told you to crap your pants to help the economy, you'd do it.

I understand your reference to "crap your pants" as that's precisely what Repubs are currently doing. They know that should Obama win this year the medical care debate will never return to the "pay or suffer" topic. Once people realize its benefits they'll remember which party tried to obstruct it. Furthermore, as society changes and people realize their livelihood could be on the line they'll appreciate a government that takes on a more involved role. In other words being left to ones own devices may be preferable in a world one is familiar with but a different story in today's society. People look around and see thousands of empty homes, hear stories about families on the street, how middle class citizens worked for 30 or more years only to lose it all. The worst part is it's not due to war or pestilence or famine, something unavoidable. There is no shortage, per sé.

There may be a sucker born every minute but even Repubs are realizing change is necessary as witnessed by polls showing their fickle endorsement of candidates. Alan Greenspan's philosophy of rampant capitalism, the invisible hand, has been proven wrong and he admitted such in front of Congress. The "every man for himself" idea, the para-Libertarian view of the road has resulted in people living on the street because those folks can't see beyond the next hill.

Whether it's Newt's child labor idea that popped into this head while straining during a 10 minute dump or Santorum's birth control ban conceived during a wet dream the stark reality of watching one's neighbor have their furniture put on the lawn after being thrown out of their house tends to place such ideas in the loony bin. Both Repubs and the "undecided" are witnessing the result of laissez-faire government and while it's human nature to believe such things only happen to others there's just too many "others" to ignore.

While an improving economy may help Obama people are starting to realize things are not going to return to the good, old days. High unemployment will remain and "conventional" jobs will continue to move overseas. This is not the time to turn one's back on government help/involvement.