PDA

View Full Version : Bush bypasses Senate to appoint 'Swift Boat' donor



Qtec
01-11-2012, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush bypasses Senate to appoint 'Swift Boat' donor
Updated 4/5/2007 10:35 AM

WASHINGTON When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was poised to reject a controversial Republican fundraiser as ambassador to Belgium last week, the White House quietly withdrew the nomination.

<u>Withdrawn, but not for long.</u> President Bush on Wednesday <span style='font-size: 14pt'>bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to name St. Louis businessman Sam Fox, 77, to the diplomatic post.</span>

USA TODAY ON POLITICS: What the blogs are saying ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Fox's nomination had drawn fire because he donated $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The group aired TV ads that questioned the service of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in Vietnam and contributed to his defeat by Bush in 2004.</span>

The maneuver left Senate Democrats fuming. Kerry called it "sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate."

Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said the president wasn't trying to provoke Democrats with the appointment and called some senators "very supportive, even Democrats." He declined to name them.

Louis Fisher, a constitutional-law specialist at the Library of Congress, says Bush's move "is to show he still has some unilateral power" despite second-term travails. However, he adds, "There's always a price for this" in souring relations with Congress.

Recess appointees can serve through the next session of Congress effectively the end of Bush's term.

Responding to questions through an aide, Fox said he didn't think the lack of Senate confirmation would affect his credibility in the post. "I believe I will be measured on my performance in the job," he said. </div></div>

Classy.

Q......... link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-04-bush-sam-fox_N.htm)

Qtec
01-11-2012, 05:51 AM
In short,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Recognizing Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation, Bush withdrew the nomination last month. On Wednesday, with Congress out of town for a spring break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264090,00.html#ixzz1j9L4gJHl
</div></div>

Like I said, you can't trust a Republican politician, not one.

LWW
01-11-2012, 06:33 AM
So you support one side flaunting the COTUS ... but not the other?

LWW &lt;--- Sadly, not surprised.

Qtec
01-12-2012, 08:58 AM
Back up the truck.

Bush WITHDREW this person. Do you know what that means?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was poised to<span style='font-size: 14pt'> reject a controversial Republican fundraiser</span> as ambassador to Belgium last week, the White House quietly <span style='font-size: 17pt'>withdrew the nomination.</span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">ie, he is no longer a candidate.</span>

<u>Withdrawn, but not for long.</u> President Bush on Wednesday <u>bypassed the Senate </u>and used a recess appointment to name St. Louis businessman Sam Fox, 77, to the diplomatic post. </div></div>

Bush lied. Did Obama?

If Obama had pulled such a dirty dishonourable fraud, you would be having kittens.

Q

Soflasnapper
01-12-2012, 11:39 AM
The COTUS provides the POTUS that power. Exercising it is hardly 'flaunting' anything, except a willingness to anger the Senate and/or opposition party.

In the current Obama case, the Senate Republican MINORITY has no objections to his nominee, now recess-appointment, per se, according to them. He's a fine choice, by their admission. It's the agency itself they want changed before they'd allow any head of it to be consented to.

In the Bush case, the problem was exactly who the nominee was, and the Senate objected to him, per se. Still, a POTUS can put such a man through as a recess appointee with full legitimacy, just with a lot more acrimony as a result in the aftermath. Even a man who's candidacy had been withdrawn. That makes it look even worse, but it's wholly legitimate as a matter of the COTUS.

The issue is political-- the comity or lack thereof between the branches as a result-- not the COTUS. Frankly, the GOP and Obama could not be in a worse relationship, so I doubt it even matters in this case. And probably, that was also the case in the Bush recess appointment. There was no love to be lost, and just more of the same as a result.

LWW
01-12-2012, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The COTUS provides the POTUS that power.</div></div>

Actually ... it does nothing even close to authorizing Obama to do what he did.

But, I have an unfair advantage being that I have actually read the document. Might I suggest ARticle 1, Section 5?

The "THREE DAY RULE" has been in effect since 1789.

Much tour chagrin, even a godking ... such as dear leader ... lacks the legal authority to trump the COTUS.

You really SHOULD read it.

Soflasnapper
01-12-2012, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Article 2, Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;</span>
</div></div>
The 3-day rule has not been 'the law' with respect to the use of the COTUS authorized power of the presidency for recess appointments. The 'authority' which allegedly makes it so is an opinion of the Clinton Office of Legal Counsel, which has a far shorter pedigree than you've claimed (1798 vs. the 1990s).

I would go so far as to say the opinion of the WH Counsel's Office actually has no binding effect in law whatsoever, and echo what is the general view that has been explained widely from many sources, that there is no clear Constitutional language as to the recess appointment power's limits as to what kind and how long of a recess is required for the president's authority to kick in.

And, apparently, by my cited section above, given the intent of the Senate by its adjournment to be in recess, and the disagreement of the House, if that is any kind of colorable issue here, the POTUS can decide between the two on his own, with full authority from the COTUS itself.

BTW, your condescension could not be more mistaken than when directed my way, as the jury here may note.

BTW II, true Constitutionalists look to the intent of the Framers. The intent of the Framers in making the recesses of the houses of Congress constructively co-terminous unless agreed to the contrary is for keeping them around to do business. Not to block business, or to frustrate and make a dead-letter out of the POTUS's recess appointment power.

LWW
01-13-2012, 04:02 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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Article 2, Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;</span>
</div></div>
The 3-day rule has not been 'the law' with respect to the use of the COTUS authorized power of the presidency for recess appointments.</div></div>

Sorry:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. </div></div>


The senate is not in recess until the house and senate both say they are in recess.

The "THREE DAY RULE" has existed since the COTUS was ratified.

You really should read some of the founding documents.

Soflasnapper
01-13-2012, 06:28 PM
Jeebus, can you not read nor understand?

I QUOTED FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

It says, if the two houses of Congress do not agree on the timing of adjournment, the POTUS is empowered to make the decision. Plain language.

It would seem obvious that the two houses of Congress are unable to agree on their adjournment timing, and therefore, the POTUS is by the very language cited, able to decide for them.

You say read the document, and then fail to read the rest that does not support your claims??!!?!?!

LWW
01-14-2012, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeebus, can you not read nor understand?

I QUOTED FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

It says, if the two houses of Congress do not agree on the timing of adjournment, the POTUS is empowered to make the decision. Plain language.</div></div>

How lame was that ... the two houses are not in disagreement with each other.

They are in disagreement with the executive branch.

You really should try using your brain, you obviously aren't a stupid man ... but a willfully brainwashed one. That is what makes these discussions with you so difficult.