He has enough just in the last 5 years to keep his keyboard smokin' for months to come....
George Will: Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
He has enough just in the last 5 years to keep his keyboard smokin' for months to come....
No, it's funny because every modern President has done similar things that Obama is doing in the same or different ways. So, like, throwing Nixon in there is kind of stupid. It's more heat than light, if you catch my drift.
I did not know George Will was still allowed to write for anyone.
The comparison of Obama to Nixon is a natural extension of the same gotcha crying wolf mentality of the Birther crowd.
Seriously, how many Attorney Generals has President Obama fired to avoid a subpoena or an investigation?
The comparison of Obama to Nixon is a natural extension of the same gotcha crying wolf mentality of the Birther crowd.
Seriously, how many Attorney Generals has President Obama fired to avoid a subpoena or an investigation?
Obama's Abuse of Power
An appeals court says his recess appointments are unconstitutional
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578263793332301584.html
........But here's the Obama kicker: He consciously made those "recess" appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess but was conducting pro-forma sessions precisely so Mr. Obama couldn't make a recess appointment. No President to our knowledge had ever tried that one, no doubt because it means the executive can decide on his own when a co-equal branch of government is in session.
In Noel Canning v. NLRB, a Washington state Pepsi bottler challenged a board decision on grounds that the recess appointments were invalid and that the NLRB thus lacked the three-member quorum required to conduct business. The D.C. Circuit agreed, while whistling a 98 mile-per-hour, chin-high fastball past the White House about the separation of powers.
In the 46-page opinion, the three-judge panel said that "not only logic and language, but also constitutional history" reject the President's afflatus. The Federalist Papers refer to recess appointments expiring at the end of the following session of Congress, the court explained, so it stands to reason that recess appointments were intended to be made only when the Senate is in a recess between sessions, not any time the Senators step out of the Capitol.
"An interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement," wrote Chief Judge David Sentelle for the court, "giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."
Judge Sentelle added, in a clear warning to the lawyers who let Mr. Obama walk out on this limb, that "Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers."
In a particular surprise, two of the three judges also ruled that recess appointments are only allowed to fill vacancies that arise during the time the Senate is in actual recess. This has not been the recent practice, and it means that Presidents could not wait, say, until a recess in December to appoint a controversial replacement for a Secretary of State who resigned in October................
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578263793332301584.html
An appeals court says his recess appointments are unconstitutional
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578263793332301584.html
........But here's the Obama kicker: He consciously made those "recess" appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess but was conducting pro-forma sessions precisely so Mr. Obama couldn't make a recess appointment. No President to our knowledge had ever tried that one, no doubt because it means the executive can decide on his own when a co-equal branch of government is in session.
In Noel Canning v. NLRB, a Washington state Pepsi bottler challenged a board decision on grounds that the recess appointments were invalid and that the NLRB thus lacked the three-member quorum required to conduct business. The D.C. Circuit agreed, while whistling a 98 mile-per-hour, chin-high fastball past the White House about the separation of powers.
In the 46-page opinion, the three-judge panel said that "not only logic and language, but also constitutional history" reject the President's afflatus. The Federalist Papers refer to recess appointments expiring at the end of the following session of Congress, the court explained, so it stands to reason that recess appointments were intended to be made only when the Senate is in a recess between sessions, not any time the Senators step out of the Capitol.
"An interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement," wrote Chief Judge David Sentelle for the court, "giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."
Judge Sentelle added, in a clear warning to the lawyers who let Mr. Obama walk out on this limb, that "Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers."
In a particular surprise, two of the three judges also ruled that recess appointments are only allowed to fill vacancies that arise during the time the Senate is in actual recess. This has not been the recent practice, and it means that Presidents could not wait, say, until a recess in December to appoint a controversial replacement for a Secretary of State who resigned in October................
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578263793332301584.html
there is little doubt this is an obstructionist Congress; that said LBJ had the same problenm with his Dixiecrats, but passed Civil Rights.
Simply saying "i cannot work with Congress" is not an exception either
I am wary of governing by executive actions - it leads more and more to the Unitary President.
Somethine V.P Cheney espoused.
There is a list of them with Obama, from his Dream Act, to the EPS regs...I'm not having time to google them, but it is a worrisome trend.
Anyone whom appreciates any semblance of Original Intent would agree -no?
Simply saying "i cannot work with Congress" is not an exception either
I am wary of governing by executive actions - it leads more and more to the Unitary President.
Somethine V.P Cheney espoused.
There is a list of them with Obama, from his Dream Act, to the EPS regs...I'm not having time to google them, but it is a worrisome trend.
Anyone whom appreciates any semblance of Original Intent would agree -no?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Oh give me a fucking break with this teabagger/neocon bullshit. Will has been a pencil neck shill for the right wingnuts ever since he helped out Nixon by stealing crib notes for a Presidential debate.
The Insurance companies and various business honchos all howled bloody murder that they needed more time to set up for the Affordable healthcare act implementations, and hacks like Will chimed in that Obama was acting "unconstitutional" to ignore their requests.
So now he complied, and he's damned again by the same yahoos for doing what they wanted.
Bottom line: these yokels have been bent ever since Obama beat them fair and square in 2008 and they really lost it when he beat them again in 2012. The GOP has been documented as making Obama's term(s) as non-productive as possible...so small wonder they falsely whine like little bitches that everything Obama says and does is "unconstitutional".
Pity they can't logically prove it beyond opinion pieces. Will doesn't want to give up his right wingnut card when he talks against the teabagger push to pull a Gingrich on this... so he just keeps repeating a lie. Pathetic.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And yet a more objective take on the subject:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ments-constitutional-Supreme-Court-takes-case
Given the plethora of "dead of night" appointments the Shrub pulled during his (illegal) tenure, to call the GOP and their sycophants hypocritical on this would be an understatement.
thanks, didn't know this was now before SCOTUS.
It's a lot to digest, the proceedurals about whethere these are really "recess" and whether the Senate really is in session with the pro forma
openings and closing of business.
I'm not all up on Shrub either, his appointments, but I am fairly sure the Senate has the ultimate say by advise and consent, and going around that when recess appointments were not because of gridlock but becaus the Congress used to really be filled by citizens
rather than a permant political class....
Well this is one to watch next SCOTUS,,should be an indicator on executive powers.