PDA

View Full Version : The Moron flaunts The Law



llotter
01-04-2012, 02:56 PM
The power to make 'recess appointments' by the Executive only arises when vacancies happen when Congress is out of session and circumstances require that they be filled immediately. This is certainly not the case for The Moron's appointments to the NLRB today or the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Of course, the morons in Congress will again cry wee weee weee all the way home like the pathetic little turds they are.

pooltchr
01-04-2012, 03:59 PM
If this new Czar position needed to be filled immediately, why did he wait months, and then decide that since the Senate wasn't going to recess, he would just pretend they did?

He seems to like making up new rules as he goes along.

I hope the country can survive another year of this vile marxist sitting in the white house.

Steve

LWW
01-04-2012, 05:05 PM
He is a godking so of course he can make things up as he goes ... or so the O-cult believes.

Qtec
01-05-2012, 02:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If this new Czar position needed to be filled immediately,<u> why did he wait months, and then decide that since the Senate wasn't going to recess, he would just pretend they did?</u>

He seems to like making up new rules as he goes along.

I hope the country can survive another year of this vile marxist sitting in the white house.

Steve </div></div>

You are really clueless.

17 sep 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uro_63X_7f0)

Its been 15 months! The GOP recently admitted that they have never had any intention of appointing ANYONE to head the agency, a revelation which left Obama with no choice.

This admission shows the GOP in their true colours, a bunch of low life LIARS.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>They wasted months and MILLIONS of $ doing their song and dance act in attacking Warren for the job but we all know now it was all a FRAUD. A total waste of time and money.
</span>
Q

LWW
01-05-2012, 04:56 AM
So you believe Obama is above the law?

Sev
01-05-2012, 06:24 AM
He's black.
He's liberal.

The law does not apply to him.

llotter
01-05-2012, 07:06 AM
The point I was trying to make is that under the Constitution, the power to make recess appointments is only valid when the vacancy occurs during a recess.

Article II, Sec. 2: 'The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session'

OTOH, both parties have flaunted the Constitution for decades so we may as well get used to living in decline under dictatorships.

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point I was trying to make is that under the Constitution, the power to make recess appointments is only valid when the vacancy occurs during a recess.

Article II, Sec. 2: 'The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session'

OTOH, both parties have flaunted the Constitution for decades so we may as well get used to living in decline under dictatorships. </div></div>

Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, did the same thing, far more often than President Obama has done it.


Guess you didn't bother to check it out, or your obvious racist, homophobic, misogynistic attitudes cancel out rational views.

Also does NOT have to go vacant during recess, just be vacant during recess, and any appointment can and has been made in this same manner, for decades, by many presidents.

Again, you prove your own gross ignorance.

Your collective racism has been proven over and over again.

I don't know which of you have most repulsed us, you for your praise of a cowardly murderer, or your equal, who repulsed all of us, and would have been beaten to a pulp had he stated anywhere in New York, or in most any city in this country, what he wrote on this forum.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, OBL was an evil person, responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. BUT, he was also the leader of a rather large group of people, not a country, but a large group of like minded people. In some ways, that would make him as much of a world leader as some third world dictators.

steve


How would you define a world leader? Do they have to be a leader of a country? Why? Is the Pope a world leader?
If I buy an island and have a dozen people living there, can I claim status as a country and become a world leader?
Is the leader of China more of a world leader than the POTUS, simply because more people live in that country?
Is it a matter of size, or power, or influence? If it is, then OBL certainly had influence ofer the group he lead.

Your opinion is that OBL would not be considered a world leader, but on what exactly do you base your opinion?

Steve


Had OBL had a gun in his hand, and was threatening our troops, it would have been proper, though regretable, for them to use deadly force to protect their own lives.

</div></div>

The man who was so angry that President Obama accomplished what Bush couldn't accomplish in eight long miserable years of lies, law breaking, and incompetence, that he struggled right here to categorize bin Laden as a world leader, out of sheer racism and hatred for our president, and exasperation over the fact that our President's leadership brought down our most despised enemy, bin Laden, our despised attacker, and the most wanted inhumane pig in the world, the man whose head Bush said he wanted in a box on his desk!

Absolutely despicable, and repulsive to everyone on this forum, particularly coming from someone who brags about being in an inhumane war and refusing to admit that it should never have happened, stating it should have gone on even longer, when the known standard was "Kill anything that moves"...gross hypocrisy, and irrational ignorance, that he would have th colossal nerve to attack our president, and our special forces, for killing bin Laden.

Your attack today, on the President, is just as unjustified, and irrational, but his disgusting un-American emotions, ewhen we finally killed bin Laden, was even worse than when he wrote, "When a woman spread her legs she loses her defense" truly a sicko psychological wreck!

G.

Sev
01-05-2012, 08:26 AM
I believe the courts may end up deciding this.

Apparently Obama went forward against the advice of his legal counsel.

LWW
01-05-2012, 08:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe the courts may end up deciding this.

Apparently Obama went forward against the advice of his legal counsel. </div></div>

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/king-obama-59693.jpg

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>IT'S GOOD TO BE KING!</span>

Sev
01-05-2012, 08:56 AM
November is only 11 months away.
Hopefully he am Michelle's ever growing fat ass will be thrown to the curb.

LWW
01-05-2012, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">November is only 11 months away.
Hopefully he am Michelle's ever growing fat ass will be thrown to the curb. </div></div>

I'd guess she's an easy 2 bouncer if she landed on that badonkadonk ... maybe 3.

LWW
01-05-2012, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">November is only 11 months away.
Hopefully he am Michelle's ever growing fat ass will be thrown to the curb. </div></div>

OOC ... have you ever noticed that leftist's never consider women in the political or news arena to be credible unless their arse is at least a full axe handle wide?

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe the courts may end up deciding this.

Apparently Obama went forward against the advice of his legal counsel. </div></div>

I don't think so, Sev. He is far from the first president to do this same thing, and in fact, he has not done this nearly as often as his predecessors.

G.

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">November is only 11 months away.
Hopefully he am Michelle's ever growing fat ass will be thrown to the curb. </div></div>

As long as they president likes her ass, which he obviously does, that's all that matters. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
01-05-2012, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">November is only 11 months away.
Hopefully he am Michelle's ever growing fat ass will be thrown to the curb. </div></div>

As long as they president likes her ass, which he obviously does, that's all that matters. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

What exactly are you implying?

Soflasnapper
01-05-2012, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe the courts may end up deciding this.

Apparently Obama went forward against the advice of his legal counsel. </div></div>

Probably will not. Something not that dissimilar was the occasion of the Johnson impeachment effort. Not a lawsuit-- impeachment. Let's see if the House has an appetite for pushing articles of impeachment. I think they might, but they might also be held back.

I doubt it's entirely clear that the prior standard is binding, more than customary.

LWW
01-05-2012, 10:56 AM
You are probably right ... but only because of cowardice on the part of the republichickens.

Soflasnapper
01-05-2012, 11:13 AM
Niiiice. Because what good is a discussion about high Constitutional matters without taking a cheap and undignified shot at a woman's anatomy who is not involved in this matter?

Very classy! You and your overweight boyfriend, both!

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe the courts may end up deciding this.

Apparently Obama went forward against the advice of his legal counsel. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell assailed the "uncertain legal territory" of the presidential action, it seemed unlikely the issue would be resolved anytime soon in the courts. Legal challenges of agency decisions often take months, if not years.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fiercely opposed creation of the consumer protection bureau, said it would not rule out a legal challenge to Cordray's appointment and it could weigh heavily on future actions by the watchdog.

"One of the lawyers we consulted on this said 'if you are bringing a suit on a rule against this agency and you didn't raise this issue you could be charged with legal malpractice,'" said David Hirschmann, head of the group's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

Cordray told Reuters he was ready to get down to work and would not be distracted by possible legal challenges. "I can't be distracted by that," he told Reuters after flying to Cleveland on Air Force One with Obama.

NOMINATION BATTLE

The battle over nominations dates back to the Bush administration when Democrats kept the Senate in similar "proforma" sessions to try to block recess appointments by the Republican president, not leaving for more than three days.

Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives and Senate must agree on any recess lasting longer than three days.

Republicans who control the House have blocked any longer breaks in hopes that would prevent appointments by Obama.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a report last month <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Constitution did not specify how long the Senate must be away for recess appointments </span>to be made but Republicans pointed to a 1993 Justice Department legal brief that said they had to be away longer than three days.

One law professor said that brief wrongly referred to the constitutional requirement that the two chambers have the approval from one another to break for more than three days and that the courts will likely be hesitant to intervene now.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"There is no minimum time needed to trigger the president's recess appointment authority," said Catholic University Columbus School of Law professor Victor Williams, adding that he doubted the courts would look favorably on a legal challenge.</span>"The courts are very reluctant to second guess the political branches when a duty has been given to political branches, explicitly, textually by the Constitution," he said.

The congressional report found two examples of appointments made during recesses of less than three days, though they were done after Congress completed a session and before they began the next one.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>President Theodore Roosevelt made some 160 appointments in 1903 when Congress was gone for less than a day, and the Truman administration made one appointment in 1949 when the Senate was gone for two days, the report said.</span> </div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-05-2012, 04:37 PM
Yes, this is an area with a lot of variation.

Reading up on it a bit, I found that FDR called the period between gaveling out and then gaveling in a session an interim session (or something) and used what I'm thinking was a fraction of a second, or a minute or two, max, as a recess period that allowed a recess appointment.

As llotter explained, it is likely the original language of the Constitution meant to say only vacancies that come about during such a recess can be handled in this fashion, but that is not how things have been done, for decades if not forever.

Mainly, the vacancies that are being handled this way are for vacancies that occurred when Congress was in session, so none of them, theoretically, should be allowed to be filled this way. But all the presidents have violated that letter of the law, apparently.

Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 08:15 PM
Stare decisis. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
01-06-2012, 02:55 AM
Congress IS in recess.
What business was taken up by Congress yesterday? Eh... none because nobody was there.
This 'Pro Forma' crap is nothing more than a gimmick. The Pres is right not to take it seriously.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the most important documents on the scope of the Recess Appointments Clause is the report the Senate Judiciary Committee issued on the question in the wake of President Theodore Roosevelt’s decision to make recess appointments during a truly brief gap between two sessions of Congress. That report likewise advocated a practical interpretation that focused on the ability of the Senate to perform the advise and consent function.

It was evidently intended by the framers of the Constitution that [“recess”] <span style='font-size: 23pt'>should mean something real, not something imaginary; something actual, not something fictitious.</span> They used the word as the mass of mankind then understood it and now understand it. It means, in our judgment, . . . <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the period of time when the Senate is <span style="color: #000099">not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of Congress, or in extraordinary session for the discharge of executive functions; when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its Chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it cannot receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.</span></span> </div></div>

Now stop whining.

Q

Q

LWW
01-06-2012, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point I was trying to make is that under the Constitution, the power to make recess appointments is only valid when the vacancy occurs during a recess.

Article II, Sec. 2: 'The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session'

OTOH, both parties have flaunted the Constitution for decades so we may as well get used to living in decline under dictatorships. </div></div>

Please ... don't insert reality against an argument based on emotion, you know that riles leftists to no end.

LWW
01-06-2012, 05:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congress IS in recess.

Q </div></div>

1 - No, they aren't.

2 - It wouldn't matter if they were, the opening didn't occur during a recess by even the most convoluted doublethinking.

Gayle in MD
01-06-2012, 06:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congress IS in recess.
What business was taken up by Congress yesterday? Eh... none because nobody was there.
This 'Pro Forma' crap is nothing more than a gimmick. The Pres is right not to take it seriously.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the most important documents on the scope of the Recess Appointments Clause is the report the Senate Judiciary Committee issued on the question in the wake of President Theodore Roosevelt’s decision to make recess appointments during a truly brief gap between two sessions of Congress. That report likewise advocated a practical interpretation that focused on the ability of the Senate to perform the advise and consent function.

It was evidently intended by the framers of the Constitution that [“recess”] <span style='font-size: 23pt'>should mean something real, not something imaginary; something actual, not something fictitious.</span> They used the word as the mass of mankind then understood it and now understand it. It means, in our judgment, . . . <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the period of time when the Senate is <span style="color: #000099">not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of Congress, or in extraordinary session for the discharge of executive functions; when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its Chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it cannot receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.</span></span> </div></div>

Now stop whining.



Q </div></div>

Another case of Repigs whining and trying to punish the President for the mess that they themselves have created, a dysfuntional Congress.


The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 02:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point I was trying to make is that under the Constitution, the power to make recess appointments is only valid when the vacancy occurs during a recess.

Article II, Sec. 2: 'The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session'

OTOH, both parties have flaunted the Constitution for decades so we may as well get used to living in decline under dictatorships. </div></div>

Please ... don't insert reality against an argument based on emotion, you know that riles leftists to no end. </div></div>

The REALITY is that this analysis is null and void for some historical reason, and NO president, not St. Reagan or any other president in our lifetime, and perhaps for a century or more before any of us were alive, has interpreted the language in this way, and/or honored its language (which I agree is fairly clearly what llotter says it means).

Nor has any Republican complained on this basis.

The fact is that the Senate cannot be called into session by the minority, the Senate's being in recess was specifically part of the adjournment motion ending the last session, and the only supposed reason it is said the Senate is in session is that the House pretends to be.

You want to talk reality, let's talk about the meaning of these words in reality. The Senate is functionally in recess when it is not in condition to receive communications from the president (as in nominations) or to proceed to actions to address such matters. As the adjournment specified 'no legislative activities' until the real session beginning, the Senate cannot re-bring any of this up even if it wanted to, and so there is a state of recess regardless of how partisans want to trump it up.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 09:03 PM
Just to add, the rules of the two bodies of the Congress are not the law. They do not have legal standing. They are not in the Constitution, specifically as to whatever the current body of rules consist of (or their predecessors, before various rules were changed, internally).

Clearly enough, no LAW states that a 10 day recess is required, nor that a 3 day recess is required, or that any time frame for a recess is required.

As the history of these matters has been better detailed, in a surprising interpretation from TR Roosevelt, in the few seconds of gaveling a new session into session, TR decided there had been in effect a recess. He used THAT time period, of vanishingly small length, to put through over 150 recess appointments.

That is the kind of wildly varying precedent that applies to this situation.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 06:25 AM
They did it again. Gimmicks. Pretend Govt.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwlFR84XT0U&feature=player_embedded#!)

Pretending that the house was actually there to do business.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here are the facts: The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running.</span> </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-07-2012, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly enough, no LAW states that a 10 day recess is required, nor that a 3 day recess is required, or that any time frame for a recess is required.</div></div>

What you miss ... and I have to assume that this is by intent ... is that Obama went against the advice of his own legal staff and his own stated policy.

But ... being a godking in the eyes of his minions ... if dear leader said the standard was 3 days when Bush was POTUS, his botlike followers will slavishly believe this to be the "TRUTH" on the matter.

OTOH when dear leader is immaculated, and then says the standard is 3 seconds ... the O-cult will nod their collectivist heads in O-bedience to the new version of "TRUTH."

To prove their ultimate fealty, when this hypocrisy between versions of "TRUTH" is pointed out ... they will proof their willing serfdom by swearing that both versions of "TRUTH" are correct.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is that Obama went against the advice of his own legal staff and his own stated policy. </div></div>
LINK?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">being a godking in the eyes of his minions </div></div>
LINK?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if dear leader said the standard was 3 days when Bush was POTUS, </div></div>
Did he? LINK?

Are you finished with your rant? Do you have anything REAL or FACTUAL to say?

Eh......no.

Q

LWW
01-07-2012, 08:49 AM
Snoopy is hoist by his own petard ... again. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/obama-unprecedented-recess-appointment/)

Qtec
01-07-2012, 08:51 AM
Be specific.

Q

LWW
01-07-2012, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Be specific.

Q </div></div>

If you refuse to read the link why should I explain it to you a third time?