PDA

View Full Version : Recess Appointments Constitutional



Qtec
01-13-2012, 02:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Justice official who wrote the opinion, Seitz, heads the department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is empowered to provide binding legal opinions to the executive branch.

Her new memo cites a Justice Department legal opinion from President George W. Bush's Republican administration in justifying Obama's recent appointments. <span style="color: #990000">LOL</span> The Bush administration opinion from 2004 says that a recess during a session of the Senate can meet constitutional requirements for permitting the president to make recess appointments as long as the recess is of sufficient length. Seitz noted that the last five presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of 14 days or less.

In December, the Senate agreed to adjourn until Jan. 23 but to convene pro forma sessions in which no business was to be conducted every Tuesday and Friday.

The Senate pro forma sessions in which no business was conducted, do not "in our opinion" interrupt the recess "in a manner that would preclude the president" from acting, Seitz wrote in her Jan. 6 opinion.

Beginning in late 2007, the Senate has frequently conducted pro forma sessions that typically last only a few seconds and that "apparently require the presence of only one senator," Seitz wrote. Under a legal framework dating back nearly a century, recess appointments have been permitted when the Senate cannot receive communications from the president or participate as a body in confirming nominees. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/obama-recess-appointment-constitutional_n_1201844.html)

Q

LWW
01-13-2012, 04:16 AM
Yes they are.

What Obama did was not.

Open wide for the next spoonful of your "OPINION" to be fed to you.

Qtec
01-13-2012, 04:34 AM
How can the house be in session when nobody is there? They are all on vacation.

Q

LWW
01-13-2012, 05:07 AM
It's a shame you can't read.

eg8r
01-13-2012, 09:00 AM
Instead of finger pointing and all the "yeah well you did it why can't we", why don't you just look at the facts and see if they are correct.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.
</div></div>Was the Senate in recess? If not, "technically", then do you agree or disagree the confirmation should follow the regular process?

This is a huge problem with politics. Every time one group feels slighted by the other they decide two wrongs make a right. It is a shame that Congress is definitely not a group of men and women people should look up to.

eg8r

LWW
01-13-2012, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Instead of finger pointing and all the "yeah well you did it why can't we", why don't you just look at the facts and see if they are correct.

eg8r </div></div>

What is this madness of which you speak?

Soflasnapper
01-13-2012, 01:31 PM
why don't you just look at the facts and see if they are correct.


Well, we know one 'fact' that was incorrect-- the claim that Obama's own legal counsel had told him he didn't have the power to do this. By this release, that factoid has been proven false.

We can get another fact from this discovered fact-- that the president acted upon guidance from the WH Counsel's office, and did not take a lawless power grab for which there was no legal reasoning backing it up. That's so, even if one continues to argue it was a lawless power grab. If it is that, it would be one for which there is an argument in favor of it being within the Constitutionally granted power. (So it actually isn't likely to be that.)

Beyond all of that, we know from C-SPAN what happens when there is a lack of quorum in the Senate, when the Senate is really in session. Someone suggests a lack of a quorum, likely raising it as a point of parliamentary order, and then the clerk calls the roll, and the quorum call commences. That is, the sergeant-at-arms or other Senate officers go out, and round up a sufficient number of nearby senators (either from their offices, the corridors, or other hearing rooms), so as to make the legally required quorum before any Senate business may proceed.

Has that happened in these pro-forma sessions? No, and there has never been a quorum present for any of them. Why? Because the Senate is not in session, and there is no duty of the senators to attend.

LWW
01-14-2012, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why don't you just look at the facts and see if they are correct.


Well, we know one 'fact' that was incorrect-- the claim that Obama's own legal counsel had told him he didn't have the power to do this. By this release, that factoid has been proven false.</div></div>

You mean his AG who issued the opinion after being told what his opinion was by dear leader?

Of course that same DOJ had AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OPINION (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/12/kagan-in-2010-pro-forma-senate-sessions-enough-to-block-recess-appointments/) a few months earlier.

LWW
01-14-2012, 05:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because the Senate is not in session, and there is no duty of the senators to attend. </div></div>

Why do you keep attempting to reanimate the corpses of prior slain leftist mythology?

Better yet ... did you complete your assignment and read the COTUS?

Of course you didn't.

If you had, you would finally realize that the rules of congress are set by congress and not by your beloved godking ... and those rules are that neither house is in recess unless both houses are in full recess.

Qtec
01-14-2012, 06:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This Office has consistently advised that “a recess during a session of the Senate, at least if it is sufficient length, can be a ‘Recess’ within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause” during which the President may exercise his power to fill vacant offices.<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF"> Memorandum for <u>Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jack L. Goldsmith III, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel</span></u>, Re: Recess Appointments in the Current Recess of the Senate at 1 <u>(Feb. 20, 2004)</u> (“Goldsmith Memorandum”).1 Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 through January 23, in our judgment, those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the President from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to “‘receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.’”</span> Intrasession Recess Appointments, 13 Op. O.L.C. 271, 272 (1989) (quoting Executive Power—Recess Appointments, 33 Op. Att’y Gen. 20, 24 (1921) (“Daugherty Opinion”)). Thus, the President has the authority under the Recess Appointments Clause to make appointments during this period. The Senate could remove the basis for the President’s exercise of his recess appointment authority by remaining continuously in session and being available to receive and act on nominations, but it cannot do so by providing for pro forma sessions at which no business is to be conducted </div></div>

When Bush done it I didn't hear the GOP complain.

Q

LWW
01-14-2012, 06:56 AM
And?

Your defense is "MOMMY, MOMMY ... B-B-B-BOOOSH DID IT!"

Qtec
01-14-2012, 07:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And? </div></div>

So why are your panties all in a twist now, when Obama is just following the advice that Bush got?

Q

Stretch
01-14-2012, 08:55 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">And? </div></div>

So why are your panties all in a twist now, when Obama is just following the advice that Bush got?

Q </div></div>

Because that's how he rolls. Or should i say "twists". St.

LWW
01-14-2012, 09:57 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">And? </div></div>

So why are your panties all in a twist now, when Obama is just following the advice that Bush got?

Q </div></div>

Because I have a respect for the COTUS.

You can try your traditional lame Alinsky tactic of demanding that I defend a position I never took ... and it will fail as it always does.

Next Alinskyesque straw man that you would like to have slain before your very eyes?

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 12:35 PM
The most hilarious thing yet is your blindness to what you are REALLY supporting here.

Which is the entirely novel approach the DEMOCRATS took only as recently as 2007, which is the sole precedent for this trick or abuse of the COTUS rules.

Who said that interrupting recess periods with pro-forma sessions were sufficient, technically, to thwart the COTUS grant of recess appointment power to the POTUS?

Just the Democrats, in 2007.

Congratulations!

As a firm believer in the Constitution, you now back as the heart and soul of the Constitution a bizarre trick played by the conniving Democrats, who INVENTED this basis of this technical interpretation without any textual support or precedent, to keep the then-hated W from using his recess appointment power.

But of course, you will now argue, that just because something never existed in Constitutional law for over 200 years, and was invented as a partisan trick by your hated so-called Demokrooks, it can still be so legitimate that only the Demokrooks would object.

Even when Alexander Hamilton said differently in the Federalist Papers, and even when the only official guidance from the Senate back at the turn of the century before last, also said differently?

You are buying the transparent tactic of the Democrats as legitimate? So that you can say this latest and still worse chicanery is wholly legitimate as well?

I am surprised, and then again, somehow not surprised.

Walk with me a little here, and it's not all bad for you, even as the partisan GOP shill. Clearly enough, if Democrats want to say what they did was fine, this may be fine as well (or may not be, as it goes further). But if this is illegitimate, so to is the tactic that the Democrats invented just a few years back in an over 200-year old history of the COTUS.

Although you say I am a 100% Democratic Party backer (I disagree, of course), and you yourself are nothing of the kind with regard to backing the Democratic Party, here I now state that their tactic was an illegal abuse of tactics, and an attempt to extra-Constitutionally remove the recess power from the POTUS. And you offer them your endorsement for their tactic?

Showing what a partisan you are, as a claimed Constitutionalist.

LWW
01-15-2012, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Showing what a partisan you are, as a claimed Constitutionalist.

</div></div>

And, as usual, what you say is the opposite of reality.

LWW
01-16-2012, 04:44 AM
This is from when you were against it, and insisted it was unconstitutional, before you were for it:

[quote=Qtec] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (h/t MF) George Bush doesn’t like the Constitution. Especially that part where the Senate has to confirm his appointments. Remember when he wanted coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety agency? Stickler was turned down by the Senate twice. So in late 2006 Bush did what he does and gave Stickler a recess appointment. Now that the recess appointment has expired, Bush has found that by putting “acting” at the beginning of a job title, he can appoint people whenever he likes?

AFL-CIO Blog:

The recess appointment expired at the end of 2007. In a somewhat bizarre chain of events, MSHA removed Stickler’s bio from the agency’s website and announced Jan. 3 that Stickler’s assistant was the acting assistant secretary. But his tenure was brief: On Jan. 4, Bush named Stickler the new acting assistant secretary, a move that does not require congressional approval and is likely to last until the end of Bush’s term. After press reports that Stickler’s bio had been removed, it’s now back online.

Mine Workers (UMWA) President Cecil Roberts says: “The appointment of Richard Stickler to be acting assistant secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, just days after his term in that position expired because he couldn’t be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, demonstrates the deep level of contempt the Bush administration holds for the Senate and the constitutional role that body holds.”

Duh. &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; web page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/10/bush-recycles-mine-safety-chief-behind-senates-back-again/)

[quote] coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety agency? &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Its like Hitler putting the SS in charge of human rights.

Q.......... </div></div>

LWW
01-16-2012, 04:45 AM
And some more:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean you applaud his disregard for the US Con?

He gets paid to UPHOLD the US Con- not find ways to abuse it.

Q </div></div>

LWW
01-16-2012, 04:46 AM
And some more:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote eg8r:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; I do applaud him legally getting around the Democrats and their partisanship.


eg8r &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Not getting around the Dems eg8r - getting around Congress.

He appoints someone thru the back door against the will of Congress [ partisan ? ]and against the spirit of the US Con and you applaud him?

Q </div></div>

LWW
01-16-2012, 04:55 AM
Meanwhile:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although I disagree with a POTUS being able to do this, there is nothing "NEW" about it.

LWW </div></div>

I have, as always, remained consistent ... while you are spoon fed the party "TRUTH" and then regurgitate it on command.

I have no doubt that the doublethinkers will soon insist that the two situations are entirely dissimilar and that the actions where illegal, immoral and fattening when <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> did it ... yet wholesome and pure when done by dear leader.

Soflasnapper
01-16-2012, 02:43 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: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Showing what a partisan you are, as a claimed Constitutionalist.

</div></div>

And, as usual, what you say is the opposite of reality.

</div></div>

Ok, I didn't realize that you now admit you are no Constitutionalist. Thought you said you were. My mistake. Sorry, won't make it again.

Which explains your frequent hackery very well.

LWW
01-16-2012, 02:56 PM
Your Alinsky wordsmithing has no effect upon me.

Soflasnapper
01-16-2012, 05:03 PM
What, no bbbbbbbut Bush, or must defend dear leader?

Somehow, I sense discouragement, as if your heart isn't into it any longer. Who could know that those good old times are over?

I say NO! <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Laissez les bons temps rouler!!</span>

Stretch
01-17-2012, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What, no bbbbbbbut Bush, or must defend dear leader?

Somehow, I sense discouragement, as if your heart isn't into it any longer. Who could know that those good old times are over?

I say NO! <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Laissez les bons temps rouler!!</span> </div></div>

LOL /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

LWW
01-17-2012, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What, no bbbbbbbut Bush, or must defend dear leader?

Somehow, I sense discouragement, as if your heart isn't into it any longer. Who could know that those good old times are over?

I say NO! <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Laissez les bons temps rouler!!</span> </div></div>

That was even lamer than your first attempt.

Soflasnapper
01-17-2012, 06:55 PM
And yet, the polls are divided... LOL!

LWW
01-18-2012, 03:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yet, the polls are divided... LOL! </div></div>

That made zero sense.

Soflasnapper
01-19-2012, 05:10 PM
1 against (which was you)
1 for (which was Stretch)

Divided at the polls to date!

keith
01-19-2012, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your Alinsky wordsmithing has no effect upon me. </div></div>
Translated:I'm rubber and you'r glue !
Knacnud

Stretch
01-19-2012, 11:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your Alinsky wordsmithing has no effect upon me. </div></div>
Translated:I'm rubber and you'r glue !
Knacnud </div></div>

......and Larry needs to buy a clue. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.