Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having one senator show up in the chamber, bang the gavel and stand around for five minutes and then go home does not a session make.
The players got played.
It may seem that way, but where does the President get the Constitutional authority to determine whether or not Congress is in session? Congress said they were in session, so why does the President's opinion overrule that?
It may seem that way, but where does the President get the Constitutional authority to determine whether or not Congress is in session? Congress said they were in session, so why does the President's opinion overrule that?
According to Republican's doing what Obama did is well within the laws of the Constitution and Presidential authority.
Also as Republicans LOVE to attempt to quote the Federalist Papers and the Founding fathers in their "strict Constitutional interpretations" mantra, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
The Senate 'pro forma' sessions have been meeting for less than 1 minute. There is no business occurring within the Senate and the President was within his power. Unless, Conservatives and 'Strict Constitutionalists' want to argue now w/ a founding father's exact words.
And how many recess appoints did Bush make while the Senate was in "pro forma sessions?
Hint," Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow recess of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma session" Recess appointment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Republican's doing what Obama did is well within the laws of the Constitution and Presidential authority.
Also as Republicans LOVE to attempt to quote the Federalist Papers and the Founding fathers in their "strict Constitutional interpretations" mantra, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
The Senate 'pro forma' sessions have been meeting for less than 1 minute. There is no business occurring within the Senate and the President was within his power. Unless, Conservatives and 'Strict Constitutionalists' want to argue now w/ a founding father's exact words.
This is a lie. The Congress passed the payroll tax extension during one of these pro forma sessions. If Congress was actually in recess, as the President claims, Congress could not have passed that bill and the President could not have signed it into law.
Article I, Section V: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"
That means that when Congress says it is in session, it is in session. The executive branch does not have the authority to override that.
The fact is, Obama was in the Senate when Reid was doing these pro forma sessions. Obama is also a Constitutional professor (I think) so he would know what is Constitutional and what is not. He knows that this is blatantly unconstitutional yet decided to crap on Congress anyway.
It's obvious you haven't read any of the comments. Bush's recess appointments were perfectly legal because Congress was actually in recess.
Obama's appointments are unconstitutional because Congress was not in recess. According to Article I, Section V of the U.S. Constitution:
"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."
This means that the House and Senate must both agree to be on recess. If not, they are not adjourned. The House did not agree to be on recess, which is why you had them gavel in and out for 20 seconds every three days.
Again, schoolyard BS.
It's no wonder this country is racing to the bottom. Government has convinced retards to be mad at THIS rather than the concept of recess appointments in general.
Why don't you just say that if a politician touches a flag lapel pin once every morning, that means he showed up for work that day and there's no recess? It's the same stupid BS. You guys want to get all tied up in knots over stupid little maneuvers that make the world roll its eyes and ignore the real problems. I swear, why don't you all just go sit in class with your 3rd graders, you play the same games. And this goes for both sides of the aisles, since I think the Democrats did this a few years back, too.
You're like those morons I always come across when I'm in Vegas that think they're being so funny and clever when they tell me what it is they do for a living, and then go "welp, talked business, can write this off on my taxes now!" I mean really, these are supposedly grown adults. Act like them.
I didn't mention the advise and consent role, so I don't see how what I said was false.
Whether the House is in session or not, is irrelevant. ONLY the Senate can advise and consent on the President's appointments and therefore ONLY the Senate's "condition" is relevant to ANY conversation re: Presidential appointments. And in this scenario, according to Federalist Papers (No. 67) and Attorney General opinions and precedent the Senate was NOT in session as they could not and were not doing the business of the people.
And how many recess appoints did Bush make while the Senate was in "pro forma sessions?
Hint," Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow recess of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma session" Recess appointment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Bush's own "constitutional" lawyers, he had the power and the authority to do so. If he chose not to singly because he was already at the lowest polling point in any Presidential history and that his administration, economy and country was starting to fall to pieces around him, was his call.
At the time Reid brokered this deal Bush had made 171 recess appointments, Obama has made 32 (including the 4 most recent). As in the letter sent to House Majority Leader Boehner:
Quote:
In a June 15, 2011 letter to the Speaker of the House, the House majority leader, and the House
majority whip, 78 Representatives requested that “all appropriate measures be taken to prevent any and all recess appointments by preventing the Senate from officially recessing for the remainder of the 112th Congress.” As of December 8, 2011, no concurrent resolution of adjournment had been introduced in either chamber since May 12, 2011. During periods of extended absence, the Senate has used pro forma sessions to avoid recesses of more than three days.
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL restriction upon the President to refrain from recess appointments, and it seems has been grown out of a negotiation between Byrd and Reagan in the 80's. And this clearly shows the Republican's path of obstructionism, despite the evidence of clear and transparent transgression as they claim.
Quote:
In remarks on the Senate floor, the Senator
indicated that a threat of this practice had been part of recess appointment negotiations in 1985 between Senator Robert
C. Byrd and President Ronald W. Reagan: “He [Byrd] extracted from him [Reagan] a commitment in writing that he would not make recess appointments and, if it should become necessary because of extraordinary circumstances to make recess appointments, that he would have to give the list to the majority leader ... in sufficient time in advance that
they could prepare for it either by agreeing in advance to the confirmation of that appointment or by not going into
recess and staying in pro forma so the recess appointments could not take place” (Senator James M. Inhofe, “Recess
Appointments,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 163 (November 17, 1999), p. 29915).
This is a lie. The Congress passed the payroll tax extension during one of these pro forma sessions. If Congress was actually in recess, as the President claims, Congress could not have passed that bill and the President could not have signed it into law.
Article I, Section V: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"
That means that when Congress says it is in session, it is in session. The executive branch does not have the authority to override that.
The Senate passed by 'unanimous consent' the payroll tax cut bill, which is done all the time. And is not required by rule to be put under a tallied vote or the Constitutional "Advise and Consent" provision.
If the Senate refuses to do their Constitutionally designated jobs, and the will of the people then they can not claim to be in session. Either they're working or they're not.
If they're working then they can take up business. If they're not in session, they can't take up the people's business...and therefore the Presidential CONSTITUTIONAL powers come into play.
Can't have cake and eat it to Marie Antoinette. And as far as the President being able to say when the Congress is in session or not...apparently he can. So says the Constitution and the founding fathers.
Honest question - do you really think that normal (in other words not posting in a politics forum on city-data) give two ****s about this? And don't cop out with the whole well if they don't they're ignorant response.
The GOP won't touch impeachment b/c it'd be political suicide.
I really don't like what Obama did just because of the precedent. The dumb-ass democrats gave the GOP the idea of calling 30-second meetings every 3rd day to stonewall recess appointments, and now thanks to Obama the next Republican president has carte blanche to use the recess appointment even when the Senate is technically not in recess.
Finally a left leaner that remembers how Dirty Harry operated those last two years before he became the majority leader. I guess something like that was ok when he was doing it but not so hot now that the other side is doing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And as far as the President being able to say when the Congress is in session or not...apparently he can. So says the Constitution and the founding fathers.
