New Preamble "I The One" no more We The People

icedancer2theend

icedancer2theend

Verified User
So here we have it, a president, who does what he wants when he wants-ignoring Constitutional constraints on his power. I'm amazed at only one thing...he actually took time off his tax payer funded whine tour where he reminds everyone how tough he has had it and how those bad mean republicans are out to get him. Yes, yes, he also manages to squeeze in concerts and golf games to actually do something related to the presidency-amazing I know. We are supposed to forget that he had a year and a half of total power in congress to "get what he thinks the country needs"...but then he would have to actually OWN the consequences. I am sure even he knows that the plebeians are not totally stupid.

Yes, with this unlawful move he has created quite the political paradox for republicans...what a clever fox he is.

“President Obama is not one to let the Constitution get in the way of a ‘recess appointment.’ He just named Richard Cordray to direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and he has announced three similar recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. But Obama is making these appointments at a time when the Senate is actually in session, according to the Constitution and under all definitions accepted by authorities for the last century. If the Senate is in session, the Constitution requires the Senate’s advice and consent to these appointments. ... Only Senate Democrats can credibly tell Obama to back away from this constitutional crisis. The nation is watching to see if they will.”

link
 
Return of Dune said:
yawn.
Click to expand...

Nice to see how important you find the presidents unconstitutional power grab.

n 2007, the Democrats controlling the Senate were fed up with George W. Bush's recess appointments. Majority Leader Reid, feigning great sadness over the sorry state of our republic, resorted to the extraordinary tactic of keeping the Senate in pro-forma session so as to prevent the imperial Bush from doing an end-run around the confirmation process. The move was celebrated by liberal commentators as a brave and necessary assertion of congressional power and was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama.

Fast-forward to this week. The Senate has once again been in pro-forma session in order to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. Reid agreed to the tactic as part of negotiations with Republicans last year.

Arguing that the maneuver is nothing more than a gimmick, Obama ignored the Senate's authority and appointed Robert Cordray to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created by the Dodd-Frank legislation allegedly to prevent the excesses that led to the financial crisis. If it wasn't clear enough that the appointment was nakedly political, Obama made the announcement at a campaign rally in the swing state of Ohio, Cordray's home state.

With the alacrity one normally associates with court jesters and royal spittoon cleaners, Reid immediately endorsed the president's decision.

But the spectacle is so much more sordid than that. The CFPB is a constitutional affront, the crowning achievement of this White House's mantra of never letting a crisis go to waste.

The agency has the power to regulate any practices it deems "unfair" — primarily the practices of institutions and businesses that had nothing whatsoever to do with the financial crisis.

Indeed, it has blank-check power to write the rules it wants to enforce. Worse, it cannot be reined in by Congress, because Dodd-Frank gave it a self-funding mechanism. It can simply take up to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve's operating expenses to do whatever it wants. The power of Congress is ultimately the power of the purse. But in their finite wisdom, Democratic lawmakers gelded themselves. They also insulated the rogue agency from the courts, requiring that judges defer to the CFPB's legal theories.

So here we have Reid, a man who tried to enter the national stage by promising to be an honorable foe of the imperial presidency and the metastasizing growth of federal bureaucracies, thriving on the national stage by enabling exactly those trends when it suits his party. And it all it cost was his honor.

link
 
This or any other president would never have been able to grab any excess power were it not for the now all powerful and prevelent Military/Industrial Complex,
which YOU support with your every post and every breath.

Don't complain about the bed you made for yourself.
 
Return of Dune said:
This or any other president would never have been able to grab any excess power were it not for the now all powerful and prevelent Military/Industrial Complex,
which YOU support with your every post and every breath.

Don't complain about the bed you made for yourself.
Click to expand...

I see, so first you dismiss with a yawn and then you play bait and switch to avoid the subject...
 
Return of Dune said:
That's right, I find your hypocisy boring, but if you must discuss the symptom, at least acknowledge the actual problem
Click to expand...

Only hypocrisy here is yours. I am always willing to discuss the actuality of a position; idea; behavior; or action. You on the other hand pretend you have a position, when in fact your position is merely as partisan as those you bemoan.

The "military complex" you bring up has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Obama did. But like I said and is obvious to any intellectually honest reader, is that YOU first attempt dismissal via your "yawn" and then through a bait and switch. So be it.
 
icedancer2theend said:
So here we have it, a president, who does what he wants when he wants-ignoring Constitutional constraints on his power. I'm amazed at only one thing...he actually took time off his tax payer funded whine tour where he reminds everyone how tough he has had it and how those bad mean republicans are out to get him. Yes, yes, he also manages to squeeze in concerts and golf games to actually do something related to the presidency-amazing I know. We are supposed to forget that he had a year and a half of total power in congress to "get what he thinks the country needs"...but then he would have to actually OWN the consequences. I am sure even he knows that the plebeians are not totally stupid.

Yes, with this unlawful move he has created quite the political paradox for republicans...what a clever fox he is.

“President Obama is not one to let the Constitution get in the way of a ‘recess appointment.’ He just named Richard Cordray to direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and he has announced three similar recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. But Obama is making these appointments at a time when the Senate is actually in session, according to the Constitution and under all definitions accepted by authorities for the last century. If the Senate is in session, the Constitution requires the Senate’s advice and consent to these appointments. ... Only Senate Democrats can credibly tell Obama to back away from this constitutional crisis. The nation is watching to see if they will.”

link
Click to expand...

(Excerpt) If Republicans don’t like the structure or purpose of either agency, they should try to alter them through legislation. Meanwhile their filibustering against qualified nominees to make political points or extort concessions from the White House cripples government and discourages good people from serving.(End)

Either Obama is accused of doing nothing, lacking leadership, or he's accused of doing too much. For the better part of his "year and a half of total power in congress" he tried to work with the Republicans. Of course, in the end he had to go it alone with things like ObamaCare. Why? Because of things like this. (Excerpt) As The Daily Beast reports, his name is John Hammergren, CEO of McKesson Corp., a large medical-supply company based in San Francisco. Hammergren pulled down nearly $150 million last year, according to analysis by James Reda, a New York-based compensation consultant.....What's more, should he lose his job due to a change of ownership, GMI analysis shows that he would receive an immediate payout of $469 million. (End) http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/01/04/john-hammergren-earning-150-million-under-the-radar/

Remember people talking about the loss of jobs that may occur under ObamaCare? Po' folks like John Hammergren who, should company ownership change and he gets canned, would collect almost half a billion dollars. Half a BILLION. Does anyone have any idea how many check-ups and blood tests can be paid for with half a billion dollars? That's just one person involved in a medical supply company, a pharmaceutical distributor. Of course the Repubs didn't want the government to be able to negotiate drug prices because people like po' John would either take a salary cut or, God forbid, be unemployed even if he did walk away with half a billion dollars. He'd suffer the shame, the feelings of helplessness which accompany being unemployed and we wouldn't want to subject anyone to that. The compassionate Conservatives think about people like John. The nasty Dems just think about the nameless, faceless 45,000 people who die every year from a lack of medical insurance.

And now the President has the audacity to appoint someone to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Sure, ethical loans. BAAA-HUMBUG! Mortgages designed to keep a few thousand people in their homes? Credit card interest rates slashed? Who thinks about the family of a bank CEO when they have to go yacht-less or the CEO of a Credit Card Company cancelling the family vacation to Europe?

Well, the Repubs care! It's time to drive people to bankruptcy, put them on the street, then put the kids in school bathrooms. It's time to take the country back.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Only hypocrisy here is yours. I am always willing to discuss the actuality of a position; idea; behavior; or action. You on the other hand pretend you have a position, when in fact your position is merely as partisan as those you bemoan.

The "military complex" you bring up has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Obama did. But like I said and is obvious to any intellectually honest reader, is that YOU first attempt dismissal via your "yawn" and then through a bait and switch. So be it.
Click to expand...

The MIC has everything to do with the erosion of our rights and the expansive growth of executive power. To say otherwise is partisan denial.
 
Return of Dune said:
They espoused and caused the climate of fear under which too many americans have gladly traded liberty for false security.
Click to expand...

So, again, you avoid a direct question(s). Did the military force Obama to usurp the Constitution? I can see the headlines now. Stumping in Wichita, president Obama says "the military made me do it". And there in the crowd is Dune clapping and saying "I know Mr. President you poor sucker, I have been telling everyone the same thing-"
 
icedancer2theend said:
So, again, you avoid a direct question(s). Did the military force Obama to usurp the Constitution? I can see the headlines now. Stumping in Wichita, president Obama says "the military made me do it". And there in the crowd is Dune clapping and saying "I know Mr. President you poor sucker, I have been telling everyone the same thing-"
Click to expand...

Didn't say the military but don't let that stop you.
 
Return of Dune said:
They opened the door.
Click to expand...

Whether that is true or not (you have shown NO absolute connection) It does not answer to the FACT that Obama usurped his Constitutional powers. No one was holding a gun to his head. He acted the tyrant by doing so. Do you support his doing so? Simple straight forward question.
 
In a brazen display of the arrogance for which President Obama is so rightly infamous, his unprecedented "recess appointments" yesterday of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and of three others to serve on the National Labor Relations Board are not only unconstitutional, since the Senate is not presently in recess, but, in the case of Cordray, legally futile under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB — a point too little noticed by media accounts of the move.

Start with the constitutional point. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the power "to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." In the debate that has followed yesterday's events, most of the focus has been on whether the Senate is in fact in recess. Two points bear on that question. First, Article 1, Section 5 says that "Neither House ... shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days" — and the Republican-controlled House did not consent, precisely to block the president from making recess appointments, just as the Democratic Congress did in November 2007 and for the rest of George W. Bush's presidency. And in both cases, members of the Senate appeared every three days to gavel the Senate into "pro forma" session. In fact, only the day before Obama acted, the Senate conducted a pro forma session, convening the second session of the 112th Congress. Moreover, no less than Obama's most recent appointee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, writing as his solicitor general on March 23, 2010 to the clerk of the Supreme Court, averred that "the Senate may act to foreclose [recess appointments] by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period."

link
 
icedancer2theend said:
Whether that is true or not (you have shown NO absolute connection) It does not answer to the FACT that Obama usurped his Constitutional powers. No one was holding a gun to his head. He acted the tyrant by doing so. Do you support his doing so? Simple straight forward question.
Click to expand...

No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top