Obama, A Damn Liar

Dungheap said:
Actually, no. The Constitution does not say that the President can exercise his recess appointment powers during the recess of the Congress. It says that the President can exercise his recess appointment powers during the recess of the Senate. The Senate was in recess. Whether the House was in recess is irrelevant.

What Obama should have done was to declare Congress in recess under his powers to do so when the two houses disagree with respect to the time of their adjournment, recess appointed whomever the hell he wanted, and called Congress back when he damn well felt like it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Constitution allows congress to write their own rules.
 
Alias said:
Wrong. The Constitution allows congress to write their own rules.
Click to expand...


And cucumbers taste better pickled.

What's the relevance? Where in the rules of either house does it say that a recess of fewer than three days is not a recess? Alternatively, explain why the rules matter with respect to Obama's recess appointments?
 
Dungheap said:
And cucumbers taste better pickled.

What's the relevance? Where in the rules of either house does it say that a recess of fewer than three days is not a recess? Alternatively, explain why the rules matter with respect to Obama's recess appointments?
Click to expand...

Congress writes their own rules. The President doesn't have authority over congress. Separation of powers.

Why didn't Obama make his appointment when there was a recess before the end of the year?
 
Alias said:
Congress writes their own rules. The President doesn't have authority over congress. Separation of powers.

Why didn't Obama make his appointment when there was a recess before the end of the year?
Click to expand...

Because when the republicans complain about Obama, it gets him some free advertising.
 
Damocles said:
Because when the republicans complain about Obama, it gets him some free advertising.
Click to expand...

If Obama made the appointment before the end of 2011, his appointment would be over on Jan 1, 2012.

Obama got outsmarted when he tried to outsmart the repubs. So he ignored the Constitutional authority of congress and broke the law.
 
Alias said:
Congress writes their own rules. The President doesn't have authority over congress. Separation of powers.
Click to expand...

I can write declarative sentences as well. What's your fucking point?


Alias said:
Why didn't Obama make his appointment when there was a recess before the end of the year?
Click to expand...

Unless you take the extreme minority view that all intrasession recess appointments are unconstitutional, the fact that he waited until the after the second session began doesn't matter.

But, in response to your question, there was no intersession recess.
 
Dungheap said:
I can write declarative sentences as well. What's your fucking point?




Unless you take the extreme minority view that all intrasession recess appointments are unconstitutional, the fact that he waited until the after the second session began doesn't matter.

But, in response to your question, there was no intersession recess.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was. The day before. Here is a link for you.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/09/recessing-the-constitution

Ignorance is the biggest advantage for the left. That's why we're in trouble and in a constitutional crisis in the USA.
 
Alias said:
Yes, there was. The day before. Here is a link for you.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/09/recessing-the-constitution

Ignorance is the biggest advantage for the left. That's why we're in trouble and in a constitutional crisis in the USA.
Click to expand...


Um, just because some halfwit at the American Spectator writes something doesn't mean it is true. You're the same guy that posts that insufferable "America Thinker" claptrap, too, aren't you? Jesus. You might want to think about diversifying your political news sources.

The first session of the 112th Senate adjourned on December 30, 2011 at 11:00:34 a.m. until noon on January 3, 2012. On January 3, 2012, the second session of the 112th Senate convened at 12:01:32 p.m. and adjourned on 12:02:13 p.m. until 11:00 am January 6, 2012.

Obama made the appointments on January 4. Either the Senate was in recess during both periods (which is what I am arguing) or the Senate was not. Under your argument, the Senate was not. There was not the traditional period of intersession recess wherein the president could have undoubtedly made the appointments.

I suppose it could be argued that the 92 second window on January 3 (between the adjournment until noon and the convening of the Senate at 12:01:32) was a intersession recess, but that strikes me as ridiculous.


In short, if the Senate was indisputably in recess the day before the appointments, it was indisputably in recess the day of the appointments.
 
Dungheap said:
Um, just because some halfwit at the American Spectator writes something doesn't mean it is true. You're the same guy that posts that insufferable "America Thinker" claptrap, too, aren't you? Jesus. You might want to think about diversifying your political news sources.

The first session of the 112th Senate adjourned on December 30, 2011 at 11:00:34 a.m. until noon on January 3, 2012. On January 3, 2012, the second session of the 112th Senate convened at 12:01:32 p.m. and adjourned on 12:02:13 p.m. until 11:00 am January 6, 2012.

Obama made the appointments on January 4. Either the Senate was in recess during both periods (which is what I am arguing) or the Senate was not. Under your argument, the Senate was not. There was not the traditional period of intersession recess wherein the president could have undoubtedly made the appointments.

I suppose it could be argued that the 92 second window on January 3 (between the adjournment until noon and the convening of the Senate at 12:01:32) was a intersession recess, but that strikes me as ridiculous.


In short, if the Senate was indisputably in recess the day before the appointments, it was indisputably in recess the day of the appointments.
Click to expand...

Congress was adjourned at times in 2011 and Obama could have made his appointment at any point during that recess. BUT his appointment would have expired on the last day of 2011. That's why he didn't. He assumed congress would be adjourned after Jan 1, 2012 but it wasn't. According to the US Constitution Obama cannot make an appointment while congress is technically in session. He got oursmarted by Boehner so he ignored the law.

Congress was not adjourned. Both leaders have to agree to adjourn and Boehner never did. Case closed.
 
Alias said:
Congress was adjourned at times in 2011 and Obama could have made his appointment at any point during that recess. BUT his appointment would have expired on the last day of 2011. That's why he didn't. He assumed congress would be adjourned after Jan 1, 2012 but it wasn't. According to the US Constitution Obama cannot make an appointment while congress is technically in session. He got oursmarted by Boehner so he ignored the law.

Congress was not adjourned. Both leaders have to agree to adjourn and Boehner never did. Case closed.
Click to expand...


And we're back to the language of the Constitution. The House does not matter. If the Senate is in recess, Obama can make recess appointments. The Senate was in recess at the time of the appointments.

Your argument is that a recess of fewer than three days isn't really a recess. Well, why not?
 
Dungheap said:
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.

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.





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.

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.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top