Obama’s recess appointments are unconstitutional (President)
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.
Mr Meese's opinion is just as irrelevant today as he was on his opposition to the miranda warning, and as attorney general had no problem with violating the due process clause of the fifth amendment.
Hey, you did read the OP. I never really liked Meese, either.
Bush appointed William Pryor, Charles Pickering, John Bolton, Sam Fox, Susan Dudley, and Andrew G. Biggs....where are your screams about Bush acting in a unconstitutional manner? Not a peep then, and not a peep now.
Oh yeah, because Obama was the only black one out of all of them. People already get the hatred, this is old news.
Typical of the brain dead adoration of Obama from the Obama zombies. It's all because he's black. Get a new line, this one is old and busted. **yawn**
Hey, you did read the OP. I never really liked Meese, either.
Yes, and again, Mr Meese can (and will) justify anything that fits his views (maybe that's why he's with the Heritage group)
From his days in California to his attempts to justify President Reagan's failure to notify Congress of the arms sales, he has always put cause above the law. So when he speaks, I don't listen........especially if he is giving his opinion on what is constitutional.
Unconstitutional or not, this is a losing issue for Republicans, especially in a Presidential election year.
I see that you believe that once done something cannot be unconstitutional.
Please read these words from Article II, Section 2 Clause 3 of the US Constitution and tell me how long those appointees can constitutionally remain in their jobs. Sometimes one needs to get out his handy dandy copy of the Constitution and I am a week late but finally I read it.
3. 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.
If Obama did not violate the Constitution when he declared the Congress in recess then these people can only have their jobs till next December or maybe when they recess for the election in November. Sometimes it helps to read all the words instead of just the ones that fit what you want.
I would think that you may have read that one somewhere. No matter, you could explain it, I am sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I see that you believe that once done something cannot be unconstitutional.
Please read these words from Article II, Section 2 Clause 3 of the US Constitution and tell me how long those appointees can constitutionally remain in their jobs. Sometimes one needs to get out his handy dandy copy of the Constitution and I am a week late but finally I read it.
3. 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.
If Obama did not violate the Constitution when he declared the Congress in recess then these people can only have their jobs till next December or maybe when they recess for the election in November. Sometimes it helps to read all the words instead of just the ones that fit what you want.
It's murky, to say the least. A lot of this is, as I'm sure you realize, uncharted territory. Let the courts decide what length of time constitutes a "recess" and how long a recess appointee can serve. In the mean time let the Republicans hang themselves on this issue as the party standing up for the banks/financial industy that many believe (rightly or wrongly) screwed the country over and are a big reason why we're in this position to begin with. Obama may have never cared much whether or not Cordray's appointment would stand up to Constitutional muster...he likely made this move to draw more attention to what's really going on here.
It's murky, to say the least. A lot of this is, as I'm sure you realize, uncharted territory. Let the courts decide what length of time constitutes a "recess" and how long a recess appointee can serve. In the mean time let the Republicans hang themselves on this issue as the party standing up for the banks/financial industy that many believe (rightly or wrongly) screwed the country over and are a big reason why we're in this position to begin with. Obama may have never cared much whether or not Cordray's appointment would stand up to Constitutional muster...he likely made this move to draw more attention to what's really going on here.
And what is really going on here? Why would the courts have to decide on what has happened when we know that 4 of the justices plus Kennedy happen to be strict constructionists? That means that they read the Constitution and make their rulings according to the words not like the other 4 who are very loose constructionists and believe that the Constitution can be twisted and spun around to fit what they believe.
And what is really going on here? Why would the courts have to decide on what has happened when we know that 4 of the justices plus Kennedy happen to be strict constructionists? That means that they read the Constitution and make their rulings according to the words not like the other 4 who are very loose constructionists and believe that the Constitution can be twisted and spun around to fit what they believe.
Wow, really? We should make decisions and base our actions based on what we think a few people might think? People who are still alive and can express their opinions but you champion their opinions are the same as yours without even asking?
Then over-rule the other justices, in violation of the constitution you hold dear, because they have the horrible freedom and gall to actually disagree with you?
And what is really going on here? Why would the courts have to decide on what has happened when we know that 4 of the justices plus Kennedy happen to be strict constructionists? That means that they read the Constitution and make their rulings according to the words not like the other 4 who are very loose constructionists and believe that the Constitution can be twisted and spun around to fit what they believe.
Comments like these kind of crack me up. An interpretation of the Constitution is just that, an interpretation. Even these so-called "constructionists" are twisting and spinning the words in ways to fit what they believe.
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.
"I rise today in defense of the Constitution"
