christiefan915
Catalyst
Setting aside for a moment whether the appointment was legal or illegal, what exactly do repubs have against Richard Cordray?
Obama, A Damn Liar
- Thread starter Alias
- Start date
Setting aside for a moment whether the appointment was legal or illegal, what exactly do repubs have against Richard Cordray?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
If that is true, then why no mention of the word "big" in the title? If I did "claim" it to be a "big loss" then where's the word "big" in the the thread title?
That would be your opinion and nothing more...you can imply, you can infer, you can ASSume...but beyond your opinion you've got NOTHING to back up your lie...no EVIDENCE, no QUOTE from me using the word they way you've alleged...NOTHING but your obstinate refusal to admit you lied and got busted.
So let's review: Once again we see you've proven nothing except that you're a damn liar who will say anything to avoid admitting when you've been caught spreading bullshit.
Alias
Banned
Yes, the House does matter. Both leaders have to agree to adjourn. Both houses have to be adjourned for the President to appoint without confirmation. You keep forgetting the House.
I'm not forgetting the House. The House doesn't matter. Only the Senate matters. As I said previously, the Constitution doesn't 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.
Your position is that the Senate cannot recess without the House. It can. It just cannot recess for more than three days without the House. So it boils down to whether a recess of fewer than three days is a recess giving rise to recess appointment powers. I see no reason why not, as the Constitution is silent on that matter.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I didn't ask what a business magazine thought.
Alias
Banned
The Senate cannot be in session by itself. You're still missing the point. The rules state that both leaders of the House and Senate have to agree to adjourn to be adjourned. If the House leader does not agree to adjourn then techinally Congress is still in session and the President cannot appoint. That's what all the fuss is about. The left says it doesn't matter what the rules or the Constitution state, while the right says they do.
Alias
Banned
Oh my, yes. I should ignore Forbes and listen to you. Uh huh, yup.
Sure it can. It just cannot adjourn for more than three days by itself. Quote me the rules that you are relying on that says that the Senate cannot adjourn at all unless the House agrees. I really don't think that is an arguable point since they do it all the time.
My guess is that you are actually arguing that an adjournment is not a "recess" unless both Houses of Congress agree to it, but there is nothing in the Constitution that states that. Instead, the Constitution says that no house of Congress can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other and that the president can appoint people during recesses of the Senate.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Are you still whining about this? Why must you be such a big baby?
Alias
Banned
No, it can't because they agreed to the rules and the rules state that both leaders have to agree to adjourn.
Quote me the fucking rule. I'll quote the Congressional Record for Tuesday, January 3, 2012. From the House:
From the Senate:
Both Houses adjourned on January 3, 2012 until Jnauary 6, 2012. Obama made the appointments on the January 4, 2012, while both houses were adjourned.
Alias
Banned
Here is the Fucking rule.
"The newest administrative tactic that's not really new because Democrats did it too is underway. Speaker Boehner, with encouragement from Sen. McConnell and others, is to deny President Obama a recess opportunity. In between legislative sessions, presidents can make appoints that otherwise might not be possible if a senator (s) is determined to obstruct the advise and consent process by filibuster.
Battlelines being drawn
At stake now is whether Obama will draw another battle line with Boehner and McConnell over pushing forward with an appointment of Cordray despite the two chambers conducting so called pro forma sessions, a procedural technicality of graveling in and out of session for a few minutes every two to three days, in order to keep Obama from filling confirmation-level jobs in their absence."
http://www.examiner.com/government-...er-key-players-obama-recess-appointment-storm
Alias
Banned
Reply to post #173. Get Rana to help you out.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Don't forget...Failias is the guy who doesn't have an original thought in his pointy little head.
Most everything he posts comes from the American Thinker...ironic given his pathetic inability to think for himself and respond with anything other than insults or some cut-n-paste job.
Quote the rule. That's not quoting a rule. And no one disputes that the House and Senate are holding pro forma sessions every three days. The issue is whether the periods in between sessions while both houses are adjourned, i.e. January 3 through January 6 as quoted from the Congressional Record above, are "recesses" sufficient to give rise to the recess appointment power.
In my view, nothing in the Constitution states that the Senate must be in recess for at least three days before the president can exercise his recess appointment power. If you contend otherwise, please explain why.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Not sure, I think it is more a rejection of the power that the agency will have.
Alias
Banned
Once again, the Constitution states that the House and the Senate make up their rules to abide by. This is one of them.
What is one of them? Where is the rule? Quote it. Link it. Show me the text of this rule.
In any event, Congress doesn't get to define the terms used in the Constitution.