• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

teamosil said:
How about answer the question. If you're going to make such an incredible statement as that you believe the president of the united states is going to declare himself dictator. The kind of statement that can lead to blood being spilled. How about if you make a statement like that, you take some ownership of what you are doing. If it turns out you are wrong, you make corrections rather than just going on and doing it over again next time. That seems like the very least you could do, no?
Click to expand...

In all fairness, it was Sgt. Rock who said that. Which, if you consider his posting history, was comparatively lucid for him.
 
j-mac said:
Except for that sticky little wicket, there was NO recess.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Except that we all know there WAS a recess and Republicans were playing a little game pretending that there wasn't.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

jackalope said:
Nope. The issue with the czars was that they were not confirmed by the Senate. This is simply the GOP not liking a Consumer Protection board and trying to do an end run to gut it.

Kind of a weasly thing.
Click to expand...

Politely disagree...
 
teamosil said:
How about answer the question. If you're going to make such an incredible statement as that you believe the president of the united states is going to declare himself dictator. The kind of statement that can lead to blood being spilled. How about if you make a statement like that, you take some ownership of what you are doing. If it turns out you are wrong, you make corrections rather than just going on and doing it over again next time. That seems like the very least you could do, no?
Click to expand...

As noted by another, I did not say it. When I did make a joke about it, I referred to it as "dick-tater", specifically also noting that I meant as in "penis potato". Now, if you can't manage to appreciate a little humor and sarcasm without blowing a gasket, how about going back to the kiddie pool, as you have no business in the tall weeds with the rest of us.

BTW, I own everything that I say. And then I own libs.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
I understand. Just a little frustrating at times to have to explain positions several times over. You and I are on the same page with this. Several good articles have been linked in the thread as well, all by Conservatives ... what a shock, eh ..... as there is no long term benefit to going nuclear as Obama did. He's an arrogant, inept, narcistic putz. But he has his lemming supporters, and they are a greater threat to the Republic than Obama, as Obama will be out of office, sooner or later. But the lemmings will still be lemmings.
Click to expand...

Given your wealth of resources, perhaps you could link to something indicating that the Republicans were actually interested in vetting the candidate, as opposed to twisting the advice and consent process in an illegitimate attempt to force an amendment to an existing law? :popcorn2:
 
AdamT said:
Except that we all know there WAS a recess and Republicans were playing a little game pretending that there wasn't.
Click to expand...


You mean like the recess that Harry Reid said would not allow to take place during Bush when he wanted to appoint Estrada? You libs are real pips....You screamed bloody murder when Bush's people were telling him to end run congress with appointments due to pro forma's being enacted, but with Obama it's all good eh?


nuff hypocrisy for the night...c-ya in the morning.


j-mac
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

AdamT said:
Given your wealth of resources, perhaps you could link to something indicating that the Republicans were actually interested in vetting the candidate, as opposed to twisting the advice and consent process in an illegitimate attempt to force an amendment to an existing law? :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

That is why we have courts. Let's wait and see what evolves, eh...?
 
j-mac said:
You mean like the recess that Harry Reid said would not allow to take place during Bush when he wanted to appoint Estrada? You libs are real pips....You screamed bloody murder when Bush's people were telling him to end run congress with appointments due to pro forma's being enacted, but with Obama it's all good eh?


nuff hypocrisy for the night...c-ya in the morning.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly like that. The difference is that Obama had the balls to call Republicans on it. Finally.
 
AdamT said:
Except that we all know there WAS a recess and Republicans were playing a little game pretending that there wasn't.
Click to expand...

And we also know that the current day "Recess Appointment" is a game. And we know that Reid played the game 4 years ago. And that Obama's solicitor generals's office argued to same game to SCOTUS. All linked earlier in the thread.

So the question is ... why do you ignore the rules of the game, and now give Obama a pass to go nuclear ? You are endorsing the erosion of the Republic, and of principle, for cheap political gain.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

AdamT said:
Given your wealth of resources, perhaps you could link to something indicating that the Republicans were actually interested in vetting the candidate, as opposed to twisting the advice and consent process in an illegitimate attempt to force an amendment to an existing law? :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Is this some bad joke ? Really bad joke ? I and others linked to letter the Republicans sent to Obama, laying out the deal exactly. They had the courtesy, and political professionalism, to put it all exactly in writing.

What do you think politics is ? A set of statutes, like speed limits ? WTFU for chrissakes.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
And we also know that the current day "Recess Appointment" is a game. And we know that Reid played the game 4 years ago. And that Obama's solicitor generals's office argued to same game to SCOTUS. All linked earlier in the thread.

So the question is ... why do you ignore the rules of the game, and now give Obama a pass to go nuclear ? You are endorsing the erosion of the Republic, and of principle, for cheap political gain.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the rules of the game should be followed. But Republicans were not following the rules. They have been abusing the ever living **** out of the filibuster rule for five years, and in this case they completely abused the advice and consent rule by admittedly using it to try to force a change in existing law, as opposed to the legitimate purpose of vetting the candidate. So when you throw out the rule book, don't whine like a ****in baby when your opponent doesn't follow the rules either. Clear enough?
 
AdamT said:
Yep, exactly like that. The difference is that Obama had the balls to call Republicans on it. Finally.
Click to expand...


Then your boy has a problem with this part of the Constitution....

Section 5:
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.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Click to expand...

Now you can show us when Boehner gave permission to recess.

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
In my opinion the rules of the game should be followed. But Republicans were not following the rules. They have been abusing the ever living **** out of the filibuster rule for five years, and in this case they completely abused the advice and consent rule by admittedly using it to try to force a change in existing law, as opposed to the legitimate purpose of vetting the candidate. So when you throw out the rule book, don't whine like a ****in baby when your opponent doesn't follow the rules either. Clear enough?
Click to expand...

Again, what do you not understand about politics ? About rules put in place, or enabled, by our very Founders, so as to compel compromise, and avoid what Madison and Jefferson and others referred to as "the tyranny of the majority". Do you even understand the difference between a "Democracy", which we are not, and a "Democratic Republic", which we are ? It is a great study, with many volumes at your disposal to read. I suggest you start now. I am not tring to be a smartass, but you are making absurd and near-sighted arguments.
 
AdamT said:
In my opinion the rules of the game should be followed. But Republicans were not following the rules. They have been abusing the ever living **** out of the filibuster rule for five years, and in this case they completely abused the advice and consent rule by admittedly using it to try to force a change in existing law, as opposed to the legitimate purpose of vetting the candidate. So when you throw out the rule book, don't whine like a ****in baby when your opponent doesn't follow the rules either. Clear enough?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear. I do not whine. But you do need a diaper change. ;)
 
j-mac said:
Then your boy has a problem with this part of the Constitution....

Section 5:

Now you can show us when Boehner gave permission to recess.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Again, we all understand that Boner was gaming the rules to try to prevent recess appointments. The fact that Congress did recess, with no objection from Boner, implies that he gave permission. Where was he while all this happened, btw?
 
AdamT said:
Again, we all understand that Boner was gaming the rules to try to prevent recess appointments. The fact that Congress did recess, with no objection from Boner, implies that he gave permission. Where was he while all this happened, btw?
Click to expand...

You do not see what you are doing. You are deciding that there are scenarios where the rules apply, and then scenarios where the rules can be ignored, all based on your analyisis of what has merit, and what does not.

How long do you think that game will be played ? It is a fail before it starts. The rules are the rules. We are a nation of laws, not men. Obama is a cheap two-bit hack. That's it. But libs cannot admit that even when it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a ****ing duck !!
 
The bottom line is that Obama has manned up over the past couple months. He's done trying to compromise with the scorched earth Republican Tea Party. From here on out I think you can expect that when the GOP does something to intentionally try to harm the country, and it is within President Obama's power to stop them, he's going to stop them no matter how much they cry about it. He stopped Boehner from imposing his tax increase on working people and now he's stopping them from sabotaging the functioning of the federal government by blocking all the key nominees. I think you can expect more of the same going forward. He tried for years to get them to work together with the Democrats and form bi-partisan compromises, but the GOP told the Democrats to go screw themselves every single time and did a lot of damage to the country in the process. That's over. From here on out, if the GOP want a war, they get a war.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Again, what do you not understand about politics ? About rules put in place, or enabled, by our very Founders, so as to compel compromise, and avoid what Madison and Jefferson and others referred to as "the tyranny of the majority". Do you even understand the difference between a "Democracy", which we are not, and a "Democratic Republic", which we are ? It is a great study, with many volumes at your disposal to read. I suggest you start now. I am not tring to be a smartass, but you are making absurd and near-sighted arguments.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Founding Fathers didn't write the filibuster rule, right? There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the minorty party to block legislation via a filibuster. Nothing at all.

Let's have a look at what the Constitution actually says about advice and consent.

Article 2, Section 2:

...

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So two thirds of Senators are necessar to approve treaties, but NOT to approve "other Officers of the United States". Other officers, according to the Constitution, can be approved by a simple majority. So the filibuster of an appointment is a Congress-made rule -- not a Founder-made rule. And I would say that, once it's clear that Congress has no intention of performing its advise and consent function -- has thrown out the rule book -- the President should not be bound by Congress' rule.

Of course that's not what happened here. In this case the President simply refused to give credence to the Republicans' ruse that they were not in recess, when for all practical purposes there were in recess.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
You do realize that the Founding Fathers didn't write the filibuster rule, right? There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the minorty party to block legislation via a filibuster. Nothing at all.

Let's have a look at what the Constitution actually says about advice and consent.

Interesting. So two thirds of Senators are necessar to approve treaties, but NOT to approve "other Officers of the United States". Other officers, according to the Constitution, can be approved by a simple majority. So the filibuster of an appointment is a Congress-made rule -- not a Founder-made rule. And I would say that, once it's clear that Congress has no intention of performing its advise and consent function -- has thrown out the rule book -- the President should not be bound by Congress' rule.

Of course that's not what happened here. In this case the President simply refused to give credence to the Republicans' ruse that they were not in recess, when for all practical purposes there were in recess.
Click to expand...

Look, the Founders wrote that the Congress can make its own procedural rules. So they did. And Congress can vote to change them. They have before, and likely will again. But you do not just blow them up when you do not like them. Especially when another branch, the Executive, decides to blow up the Legislative.

Just IMMHO. There are real troubles that are possible once we decide that rules are to be ignored at our convenience. Especially when done by the rule-maker, and supposed rule-abider, in charge.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Look, the Founders wrote that the Congress can make its own procedural rules. So they did. And Congress can vote to change them. They have before, and likely will again. But you do not just blow them up when you do not like them. Especially when another branch, the Executive, decides to blow up the Legislative.

Just IMMHO. There are real troubles that are possible once we decide that rules are to be ignored at our convenience. Especially when done by the rule-maker, and supposed rule-abider, in charge.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unfortunately Republicans started jacking with the rules 2006 and they haven't stopped yet. If they had real questions about Obama's appointment I would be the first to cry foul. They should have the right to question him. But, again, they don't have a problem with the nominee. They have a problem with the law that was passed and they were trying to circumvent the advice and consent process to get a second bite at that apple. It's like trying to rob a store and complaining when the owner shoots you with an unregistered handgun. I can't get too worked up about the handgun.
 
AdamT said:
In my opinion the rules of the game should be followed. But Republicans were not following the rules. They have been abusing the ever living **** out of the filibuster rule for five years, and in this case they completely abused the advice and consent rule by admittedly using it to try to force a change in existing law, as opposed to the legitimate purpose of vetting the candidate. So when you throw out the rule book, don't whine like a ****in baby when your opponent doesn't follow the rules either. Clear enough?
Click to expand...

But the reality is that the Republicans were following the the same rules that Reid and the Democrats had accepted/followed when Bush was in office. Obama elected to circumvent all established Senate policy to satisfy his own whims. Not really what most would view as a "presidential" action.

Are you really that clueless....??
 
AdamT said:
I agree. Unfortunately Republicans started jacking with the rules 2006 and they haven't stopped yet. If they had real questions about Obama's appointment I would be the first to cry foul. They should have the right to question him. But, again, they don't have a problem with the nominee. They have a problem with the law that was passed and they were trying to circumvent the advice and consent process to get a second bite at that apple. It's like trying to rob a store and complaining when the owner shoots you with an unregistered handgun. I can't get too worked up about the handgun.
Click to expand...

You really need to do a little research on the topic.
 
Cole said:
But the reality is that the Republicans were following the the same rules that Reid and the Democrats had accepted/followed when Bush was in office. Obama elected to circumvent all established Senate policy to satisfy his own whims. Not really what most would view as a "presidential" action.

Are you really that clueless....??
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any occasion where the Democrats refused to sign off on a nominee because they didn't approve of the AGENCY that the person was nominated for. Can you provide some links?
 
Cole said:
You really need to do a little research on the topic.
Click to expand...

No, I really don't. But thanks for your suggestion.
 
If Boehner or somebody wants to take it to court they're free to, but I can tell you right now, the court will say it's ok. The clear purpose of the recess appointments clause it to enable the president to ensure that vacancies in key positions get filled promptly to avoid disrupting the government's ability to function. That is exactly what it is being used for and the courts won't let some technicality the legislature cooked up trump the clear intention of the constitution. The advice and consent requirement is there to make sure that the legislature gets input into the process, not as a level they can use to try to disable the federal government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom