PDA

View Full Version : The Constitution



llotter
01-06-2012, 01:02 PM
I think I have posted this link before but just wanted to make sure all you guys and gals had a chance to enjoy this great site:

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

I hope you enjoy this as much as I do and take advantage of all it has to offer.

If you do like it, I hope you post it wherever other might be interested. Is it possible to actually revive this great document??

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 01:35 PM
Interesting, and it raise the question, how and by whom was the language of the COTUS reinterpreted to allow the power of recess appointment to vacancies that occurred prior to the recess, and not solely to vacancies that occur in a recess?

Apparently, it has to do with determining the intent of the Framers, and what is functionally required to allow that intent to be honored, even though the plain language of the COTUS seems to be to the contrary effect (as you have previously noted, correctly, in my view, as I read the relevant passage, and as I have seen other authorities also argue).

Then there's the whole question raised when the COTUS says the POTUS 'SHALL' make appointments (i.e., must).

Clearly enough, the current GOP strategy is to ensure that he CANNOT do what the COTUS says he 'shall' do, and moreover, to make the recess power null and void, a dead letter. For the GOP Senate obstruction is NOT to prevent a bad appointee from being appointed, but ANY appointee (as they have incautiously admitted publicly), in order to frustrate the due process of law.

cushioncrawler
01-06-2012, 05:06 PM
The fundamentals of the constitution are sound.
mac.

llotter
01-06-2012, 06:17 PM
It is also clear that appointments require 'advise and consent' so if consent isn't available, then the POTUS cannot simply ignore the law of the land.

In addition, it is clear that the Senate was not in recess.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 08:41 PM
I would agree, except that the GOP in the Senate have openly stated that NO ONE will be confirmed. That there is nothing wrong with the nominee(s), but they aren't going to be confirmed, because they don't like the currently in effect and binding upon all parties law that created the consumer watchdog group.

They are using an arcane method of supposedly forcing the Senate to be in session because the House (which is under their control, is arguably in session by their leadership's actions, but has no role in confirming presidential nominations) is in these pro-forma sessions.

Note, this is the key difference between what George W. faced and this situation. In that earlier case, it WAS IN FACT the Senate leadership that held the body to be in session, as was their right. The minority cannot bring the body into session, as it would have no legitimate presiding officer, who must be from the majority.

eg8r
01-06-2012, 09:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would agree, except that the GOP in the Senate have openly stated that NO ONE will be confirmed. That there is nothing wrong with the nominee(s), but they aren't going to be confirmed, because they don't like the currently in effect and binding upon all parties law that created the consumer watchdog group.
</div></div>Where is your link for this? In the other discussion we were having it was just one man that said this. If we were to follow your logic then we could say all Democrats think like Joe Lieberman but we know the Dems as a whole are not that smart.

eg8r

Qtec
01-07-2012, 01:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is your link for this? In the other discussion we were having it was just one man that said this. </div></div>




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Senate Republicans vow to block any appointee to head consumer protection bureau</span>
They say major changes must be made to the agency's structure before they will vote to confirm a candidate. Consumer advocates say the changes would gut the bureau's power.
May 06, 2011|By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington Nearly all Republican senators vowed to block any Obama administration nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless major changes are made to the agency's structure.

The move threatens to hobble the powerful agency created last year to protect consumers in the financial marketplace as it prepares to begin operations in July. The bureau was the centerpiece of last year's sweeping overhaul of financial regulations legislation opposed by most Republicans and industry leaders.
President Obama still has not nominated a director, a five-year appointment that must be confirmed by the Senate. <u>In all, 44 Republicans enough to block confirmation signed a letter about their demands and sent it to Obama on Thursday.</u></div></div>

link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-27/senate-blocks-obama-agency-nominations/52245224/1)

Here is Mitch saying the same thing. start at the 11.20 mark (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600950117)

Q

cushioncrawler
01-07-2012, 02:38 AM
The fundamentals of the constitution are sound.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-07-2012, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is your link for this? In the other discussion we were having it was just one man that said this. </div></div>




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Senate Republicans vow to block any appointee to head consumer protection bureau</span>
They say major changes must be made to the agency's structure before they will vote to confirm a candidate. Consumer advocates say the changes would gut the bureau's power.
May 06, 2011|By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington Nearly all Republican senators vowed to block any Obama administration nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless major changes are made to the agency's structure.

The move threatens to hobble the powerful agency created last year to protect consumers in the financial marketplace as it prepares to begin operations in July. The bureau was the centerpiece of last year's sweeping overhaul of financial regulations legislation opposed by most Republicans and industry leaders.
President Obama still has not nominated a director, a five-year appointment that must be confirmed by the Senate. <u>In all, 44 Republicans enough to block confirmation signed a letter about their demands and sent it to Obama on Thursday.</u></div></div>

link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-27/senate-blocks-obama-agency-nominations/52245224/1)

Here is Mitch saying the same thing. start at the 11.20 mark (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600950117)

Q </div></div>

McConnell makes me sick! He's truly repulsive, as is Cantor.

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.

Qtec
01-07-2012, 07:30 AM
Don't you think people like eg8r[ who are so obviously detached from reality ] could better listen and learn instead of flapping their mouths off about things [as he has just demonstrated ], he knows nothing about?

Seven months ago, 44 senators,signed a letter addressed to the POTUS, saying they would never appoint someone to head this agency until their demands were met. eg8r knows nothing about it!
Need I say more.



Q..there are Penguins in a Moscow zoo who are more aware of what is happening in the USA than eg8r, and most of the present GOP Pres candidates I might add!

Gayle in MD
01-07-2012, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you think people like eg8r[ who are so obviously detached from reality ] could better listen and learn instead of flapping their mouths off about things [as he has just demonstrated ], he knows nothing about?


<span style="color: #990000"> Absolutely! </span>

Seven months ago, 44 senators,signed a letter addressed to the POTUS, saying they would never appoint someone to head this agency until their demands were met. eg8r knows nothing about it!
Need I say more.

<span style="color: #990000"> I find that to be very Typical of Repiglican Voters, and very much so with Ed and other RWers who post here. </span>



Q..there are Penguins in a Moscow zoo who are more aware of what is happening in the USA than eg8r, and most of the present GOP Pres candidates I might add!

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">It's amazing the irrational views they will slurp up, without question.

I think there are quite a few among the very wealthy people, who only vote Repiglican so they won't have to pay a dollar more on their taxes, and don't give a damn about anything BUT the Dollar Bill, even if it means that soldiers are sent out to die on lies, and the earth is put at risk by the Repiglican energy policies, and women lose their rights even to havve access to BIRTH CONTROL!

IMO, they are even worse than the ignorant religious nutjobs, because they have enough sense and intellect to realize the disastrous multi-leveled impact of Repiglican Policies, but the Dollar is their GOD, and they know they have enough money and connections to go wherever they have to to get and do whatever they wish! Greed is their God.


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.



</span>

eg8r
01-07-2012, 11:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reporting from Washington Nearly all Republican senators vowed to block any Obama administration nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless major changes are made to the agency's structure.
</div></div>Where is the proof of this? It is much better when you provide examples like you did before when there was a person actually saying what you say he was saying.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In all, 44 Republicans enough to block confirmation signed a letter about their demands and sent it to Obama on Thursday.</div></div>Where is this letter so we can all read it and see what it says?

eg8r

eg8r
01-07-2012, 11:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seven months ago, 44 senators,signed a letter addressed to the POTUS, saying they would never appoint someone to head this agency until their demands were met. eg8r knows nothing about it!
Need I say more.
</div></div>Where is your link to this letter that says all 44 people refuse to vote on any person Obama nominates to that specific position?

eg8r

Qtec
01-08-2012, 01:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the letter, lead by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the eventual director will have "vast rulemaking, supervisory, investigative and enforcement powers and the authority to regulate any person or business that offers or sells a 'financial product or service.'"

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Accordingly, we will not support the consideration of any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director until the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is reformed,"</span> the letter reads. </div></div>

the letter. (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CFPBLetter0502.pdf?mobile=nc) First paragraph!

Q

LWW
01-08-2012, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the letter, lead by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the eventual director will have "vast rulemaking, supervisory, investigative and enforcement powers and the authority to regulate any person or business that offers or sells a 'financial product or service.'"

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Accordingly, we will not support the consideration of any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director until the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is reformed,"</span> the letter reads. </div></div>

the letter. (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CFPBLetter0502.pdf?mobile=nc) First paragraph!

Q </div></div>

It's called balance of powers.

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would agree, except that the GOP in the Senate have openly stated that NO ONE will be confirmed. That there is nothing wrong with the nominee(s), but they aren't going to be confirmed, because they don't like the currently in effect and binding upon all parties law that created the consumer watchdog group.
</div></div>Where is your link for this? In the other discussion we were having it was just one man that said this. If we were to follow your logic then we could say all Democrats think like Joe Lieberman but we know the Dems as a whole are not that smart.

eg8r </div></div>

Sorry I've overstated the opposition we know about. Slightly.

It's just their leader, and 43 or 44 other GOP senators who have said this. Maybe a couple don't agree.

LWW
01-08-2012, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would agree, except that the GOP in the Senate have openly stated that NO ONE will be confirmed. That there is nothing wrong with the nominee(s), but they aren't going to be confirmed, because they don't like the currently in effect and binding upon all parties law that created the consumer watchdog group.
</div></div>Where is your link for this? In the other discussion we were having it was just one man that said this. If we were to follow your logic then we could say all Democrats think like Joe Lieberman but we know the Dems as a whole are not that smart.

eg8r </div></div>

Sorry I've overstated the opposition we know about. Slightly.

It's just their leader, and 43 or 44 other GOP senators who have said this. Maybe a couple don't agree. </div></div>

Oddly enough ... I don't see a link to confirm that either?

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 11:44 AM
<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: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the letter, lead by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the eventual director will have "vast rulemaking, supervisory, investigative and enforcement powers and the authority to regulate any person or business that offers or sells a 'financial product or service.'"

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Accordingly, we will not support the consideration of any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director until the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is reformed,"</span> the letter reads. </div></div>

the letter. (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CFPBLetter0502.pdf?mobile=nc) First paragraph!

Q </div></div>

It's called balance of powers. </div></div>

It's called extortionate abuse of the balance of powers.

And where does it stop?

There is no allowance in the COTUS for a minority party to refuse to allow the Senate to move forward with the advice and consent required for the appointments the COTUS says the POTUS 'shall' (must) make.

Defeating any PARTICULAR nominee using the normal ways is fine, so long as a) the hearings are allowed, and b) the vote is allowed. That would be the balance of powers in good working order.

Instead we have gimmicks of minority obstruction, founded in no COTUS language but instead in the arcana of the rules of the body.

So, we don't even get a hearing on the nomination, as the motion to proceed to consideration of the nomination gets filibustered, or cloture demanded to have even the preliminary vote to proceed to consider a nominee.

This is a similar tactic to throwing away the key to your safe when you owe someone money. Yes, you owe the money, and you agree it is owed and now due. Yes, you have the money (in the safe). No, you will not pay the money, because you wittingly threw away the key? And say this is a normal tactic?

eg8r
01-08-2012, 02:22 PM
But then again no one seems to be providing any proof of 43 or 44 other GOP senators and their leading saying what you said. We have seen an example of one stating that. Other than that there has been mention of a letter or something they all signed but then we don't have the letter to see what it actually says. I am not saying they haven't said this (and I am not against them doing this) but you guys have yet to prove anything.

eg8r

eg8r
01-08-2012, 02:26 PM
Fantastic. The letter you link to, the paragraph you point out clearly proves they are willing to support once the outlines of the CFPB are acceptable. They are not saying they will never support a nominee.

If they were to go ahead and approve the this guy it would be quite similar to someone being promised something if they go ahead with something they disagree with. Then when they do they act they disagreed with the promise never comes true.

eg8r

eg8r
01-08-2012, 02:27 PM
This is what gaylio keeps ranting about when it suits her. It is just a shame they never believe in it all the time.

eg8r

eg8r
01-08-2012, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's called extortionate abuse of the balance of powers.

And where does it stop?
</div></div>What is the abuse?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-13-2012, 06:55 PM
Remember the Wisconsin Democrats who left <s>town</s> the STATE rather than allow their legislative body to pass the union-stripping bill?

I think that was legal, but it violates the idea that after an election, the majority should prevail in the legislature, subject to the procedural protections for the minority. So it was an abuse of process, by circumventing the process altogether. It's generally speaking quite a bad thing, and if this were routinely done, major problems in governance would ensue.

As a one-off stunt or tactic, it had a value, in that it drew attention to what was about to be passed, and gave the voters enough time to absorb those policy details instead of having them rushed through pell-mell. And as a one-off tactic, I supported it at the time (although realizing it was not forever, and after a period of time, they must come back and take those votes, however painful the outcome).

As a continuing action (which it was not), it is very inappropriate and harmful.

Same with these games you see here in this case. Things that are not exactly illegal may still be unwise, untoward, and violative of good faith, comity, and reasonable process.

And in extremis, perhaps some would resort to things that are even illegal. Calling in bomb threats to clear the capitol, or pulling the fire alarms. Hey, they'd all work to delay the legislative process, but it shouldn't be done.

I'm calling out these irregular tactics as a kind of bad-faith guerilla warfare instead of normal adherence to sound procedure.

And it's really a kind of getting a dozen bites at the apple. At some point, after they filibuster the motion to proceed to debate, and lose that, then filibuster the final vote, and lose that cloture motion vote and then lose the final vote taken, they've used all their semi-legitimate or arguably allowable tactical moves, and finally should accept that the law has been duly passed over all hurdles, and as the law of the land, should be observed, ESPECIALLY BY CONGRESS.

Yet they continue with backdoor obstruction, as in trying to make sure there is no funding, or appointees? Not legitimate at all, and basically simple raw power moves that are antithetical to our country being under the rule of law. They're trying to make it under the rule of whoever is more ruthless and willing to use the most outlandish tactics.

Do you support that kind of thugocracy? For make no mistake, despite some confusion around these parts about who or what is the thugocracy, this kind of ugly bully-boy win-at-all-costs scorched earth, no-holds-barred politics is nothing short of a real thugocracy, not some imaginary power held by vanishing union membership.

Qtec
01-13-2012, 07:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fantastic. The letter you link to, the paragraph you point out clearly proves they are willing to support <span style='font-size: 14pt'>once the outlines of the CFPB are acceptable.</span> They are not saying they will never support a nominee.
</div></div>

What do you mean 'acceptable'?

Reality check for you.

The CFPB is an agency that will fight for the 99% against the abuses from the financial sector. Both the house and the senate passed this legislation and the POTUS has signed it into law. Its a done deal and nobody gives a $hit whether the GOP find it 'acceptable'.
Their job was to appoint someone to head the agency, not renegotiate legislation that's already law.

Q

LWW
01-14-2012, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The CFPB is an agency that will fight for the 99% against the abuses from the financial sector.

Q </div></div>

And you base this on what exactly?

What's that?

Dear leader said so and that's all that matters?

But ... I already knew that.

LWW
01-14-2012, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember the Wisconsin Democrats who left <s>town</s> the STATE rather than allow their legislative body to pass the union-stripping bill?

I think that was legal ...</div></div>

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
01-14-2012, 01:04 PM
Imagine our having some dialogue without the snark leading to nowhere. You thanked me for not trolling your size matters thread, and you're welcome, but you don't seem to have the interest in comity you claim to. Or perhaps have old bad habits you need to discard to make progress.

Don't you agree it was legal? If it wasn't, what law was being broken?

My point is that sometime, things that are legal are still no way to run a railroad, so to speak. Even if fleeing the state were entirely legal, that is not the way for the minority to behave generally. I can't imagine you disagree with that last point.

LWW
01-14-2012, 01:24 PM
Not at all ... you just refuse to discuss anything involving this regime through the prism of reality.

That you believe the POTUS can adjourn congress against the will of both bodies is your problem and not mine.

The photo thread was completely non political ... not that it stopped many members of the cabal from trolling it.

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 12:11 PM
That you believe the POTUS can adjourn congress against the will of both bodies is your problem and not mine.

I didn't say anything about 'against the will of both bodies.'

I simply cited the COTUS language, which you have yet to acknowledge, address or explain, which indeed provides the POTUS the power to settle DISAGREEMENTS of adjourning times.

You inanely assert I have never read the document, but apparently, you missed the Article II, Section 3 language yourself, or are running away from it, like the Devil from holy water.

LWW
01-15-2012, 04:39 PM
The only fault with your myth is that there is no disagreement over adjournment ... other than Obama says they are and they say they ain't.

Back to the COTUS ... the POTUS does not set the rules for congress, they do.

That leaves me with 3 possible beliefs on where you are coming from:

1 - You have never read the COTUS.

2 - You have read it, but he wording is over your head.

3 - You have read it, understand it, and willfully misrepresent it.

I gave you the benefit of a doubt.