• 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.

jackalope said:
Because the GOP has stated that they will not allow a vote for ANYONE to the post. They're trying to kill via filibuster an agency that that was lawfully created.
Click to expand...
has this ever happened before?

it seems like what the GOP is doing is bringing stupidity & pettyness to a new height.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
You misspoke. In any case, Recess Appointments are a sham, and have been for years, as they are now done not because Congress is gone for 4 months or more at a time, and in many cases once being a 30 day horse ride from a distant district. They are done now to avoid the Senate. The Senate retained one rule to compel negotiation.

Obama trashed the Constitution ........... again.
Click to expand...

Eighty Deuce said:
Bolton was not appointed during a 3-day gavel session. Further, reviews on Bolton's term were good.

Whether the GOP pursues this in Court remains to be seen. They will not make it a primary election issue though, as it will not resonate with most voters. Obama, on the other hand, did this solely to try to blame Congress for his failures. He's an inept clown, "but its someone else's fault". He is pure scumbag.
Click to expand...


So which is it, the recess appt of Bolton was good, or was a sham meant to deny the Senate its Constitutional right of advise and consent?
 
Thunder said:
has this ever happened before?

it seems like what the GOP is doing is bringing stupidity & pettyness to a new height.
Click to expand...


No, not before the GOP. Although the GOP have not just done it with the Consumer Board, they also did it with the NLRB. They said they will not confirm anyone to the board, in order to deny it a legal quorum, so that it cannot conduct its business.

The NLRB is the other agency to which Obama made recess appointments yesterday. Both instances were because the GOP was using extra-legal efforts to kill agencies, by bypassing the legislative process.
 
jackalope said:
No, not before the GOP. Although the GOP have not just done it with the Consumer Board, they also did it with the NLRB. They said they will not confirm anyone to the board, in order to deny it a legal quorum, so that it cannot conduct its business.

The NLRB is the other agency to which Obama made recess appointments yesterday. Both instances were because the GOP was using extra-legal efforts to kill agencies, by bypassing the legislative process.
Click to expand...

when the GOP engages in extraordinary pettyness, an extraordinary response by the POTUS is warranted.
 
This is one issue I will always have a problem with. I do not care which party is the culprit, obstructionist tactics are unacceptable. Everyone should get an up or down vote to prevent these sideshow distractions.

jmo
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Obama did it because he is a massive fail. He has the lowest approvals of any President at this point in their first term. His hallmark legislation, Obamacare, is going down in flames. Debt out the whazoo. So its "Blame the rich. Blame Congress. It wasn't me who farted."

Massive fail.
Click to expand...
i asked this question in another thread on this topic, during the last week, were their enough members of the senate present to form a quorum? to conduct official business? if the answer is no, then, imo, just having someone gavel the senate 'in' and 'out' does not constitute the senate being in session, and if there are not enough members present, then, imo, the senate is in recess.
 
randel said:
i asked this question in another thread on this topic, during the last week, were their enough members of the senate present to form a quorum? to conduct official business? if the answer is no, then, imo, just having someone gavel the senate 'in' and 'out' does not constitute the senate being in session, and if there are not enough members present, then, imo, the senate is in recess.
Click to expand...

The answer is no. There was one person present for the sole purpose of maintaining the illusion of not being in session.
 
randel said:
i asked this question in another thread on this topic, during the last week, were their enough members of the senate present to form a quorum? to conduct official business? if the answer is no, then, imo, just having someone gavel the senate 'in' and 'out' does not constitute the senate being in session, and if there are not enough members present, then, imo, the senate is in recess.
Click to expand...

According to the Senate's own rules, they invented the pro-forma session to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that neither chamber can go on Recess without the approval of the other chamber, and the Senate must conduct business every 3 days.

As stated before, pro-forma sessions, on a three day interval, have been held every year as long as I can see( thomas.gov only has records back to 1989 ).
 
AdamT said:
Democrats opposed Bolton because of Bolton -- not because they objected to the UN. His service was an embarrassment to the United States.
Click to expand...

Perino said that among Bolton’s accomplishments, he assembled coalitions addressing North Korea’s nuclear activity, Iran’s uranium enrichment and reprocessing work and the horrific violence in Darfur. She said he also made reform at the United Nations a top issue because the United States is searching for a more “credible” and more “effective.”

“Ambassador Bolton served his country with distinction and he achieved a great deal at the United Nations,” Perino said.

“Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassdor Bolton’s confirmation was blocked by a Democratic filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process,” she said.

Bolton quits as U.N. ambassador - politics - msnbc.com
Click to expand...


Bolton had a positive record at the UN. You libs don't like him because he didn't take any ****.

Again, show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress has the right to filibuster a nominee. Then show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress can filibuster a nominee when they aren't even in session.
Click to expand...

Again, I point you to Section 5...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Senate Explanation:


The Senate and House each sets its own rules...
Click to expand...

and then

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.

Senate explanation:

This section was included to prevent either chamber from blocking legislation through its refusal to meet. Each chamber takes very seriously its independence of the other body. To avoid having to ask the other chamber for permission to adjourn, the Senate and House simply conduct pro forma (as a matter of form) sessions to meet the three-day constitutional requirement. No business is conducted at these sessions, which generally last for less than one minute.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States
Click to expand...

Now as to the filibuster, The senate sets the rules, do I really need educate you as to the rules in place allowing this?

The demo's had no problem using it on Bush appointees.

j-mac
 
randel said:
i asked this question in another thread on this topic, during the last week, were their enough members of the senate present to form a quorum? to conduct official business? if the answer is no, then, imo, just having someone gavel the senate 'in' and 'out' does not constitute the senate being in session, and if there are not enough members present, then, imo, the senate is in recess.
Click to expand...


However, it was just fine and dandy when demo's used it against Bush nominations eh? What a hypocrite!


j-mac
 
Samhain said:
According to the Senate's own rules, they invented the pro-forma session to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that neither chamber can go on Recess without the approval of the other chamber, and the Senate must conduct business every 3 days.

As stated before, pro-forma sessions, on a three day interval, have been held every year as long as I can see( thomas.gov only has records back to 1989 ).
Click to expand...
i understand that this has been done for awhile now, but, if it goes to scotus, imo, they should rule that the use of this tactic is for no other reason than to circumvent the President's ability to make recess appointments...just having someone there to gavel the senate 'in', when there are not enough senators present to constitute a quorum, is not a legal session of that body...if they can't conduct official business, and enough members of the body can't be mustered to form a quorum, then the senate is not in session, and is in recess.
 
The only people who gave John Bolton good reviews in his brief and notorious term and UN Ambassador were Fox News and the rest of the flat earth isolationists. Bolton was reviled everywere else. He had a reputation for yelling at his staffers, undermining agreements he negotiated at the last minute, and, of course, the jingoistic rhetoric so beloved by the American talk radio audience.

By the end of Bolton's term, the US delegation was generally ignored by the rest of the world, mainly because of its reputation for dealing in bad faith and ideological obstructionism. Neither Condi Rice nor Bolton were missed, when they left, and neither recieved anything like a warm send off from their colleagues and counterparts.
 
randel said:
i understand that this has been done for awhile now, but, if it goes to scotus, imo, they should rule that the use of this tactic is for no other reason than to circumvent the President's ability to make recess appointments...just having someone there to gavel the senate 'in', when there are not enough senators present to constitute a quorum, is not a legal session of that body...if they can't conduct official business, and enough members of the body can't be mustered to form a quorum, then the senate is not in session, and is in recess.
Click to expand...

If that's the the way this falls out, I'm ok with it. But, SCOTUS would have to define "recess" in rigid terms, because if they don't, everytime the Senate goes home to sleep is a recess.
 
TomFitz said:
The only people who gave John Bolton good reviews in his brief and notorious term and UN Ambassador were Fox News and the rest of the flat earth isolationists. Bolton was reviled everywere else. He had a reputation for yelling at his staffers, undermining agreements he negotiated at the last minute, and, of course, the jingoistic rhetoric so beloved by the American talk radio audience.

By the end of Bolton's term, the US delegation was generally ignored by the rest of the world, mainly because of its reputation for dealing in bad faith and ideological obstructionism. Neither Condi Rice nor Bolton were missed, when they left, and neither recieved anything like a warm send off from their colleagues and counterparts.
Click to expand...


So, the uber libs, and thugs at the UN with their anti Israel, anti American agendas have to like the US Ambassador for him or her to be a success in representing America?

That's laughable.


j-mac
 
The demo's had no problem using it on Bush appointees.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Democrats generally used the filibuster weapon against Bush' nominees in the most extreme cases (John Bolton being one).

DeLay and Frist threatened to change the filibuster rule to get what they wanted, and the Democrats wound up letting Bush have most of his judicial appointees.

The Republicans are not giving the current adminstration the same courtesy

It is the GOP that holds, the filibuster record, and has broken its own record at least twice now. Using parlimentary tricks to forstall the function of government and to try and re fight old fights is a constant ploy of the modern GOP.

Filibustering a presidential nominee was once a very rare thing. When it happened, it was front page news. Abe Fortas and Robert Borq come to mind. Time was, the opposition said its piece, the vote was close, but the President ususally got the nominee he wanted. Actually, in those cases where it was apparant that the votes weren't there, the nomination was ususally withdrawn.

Beginning with Gingrich, that all changed. The GOP began using the filibuster process to clog the lists of judicial appointees in the late 1990's. The practice has only accellerated since.
 
Do any GOPers here believe that they were right to refuse to appoint any nominee to this new agency?
 
Thunder said:
Do any GOPers here believe that they were right to refuse to appoint any nominee to this new agency?
Click to expand...


It's a completely intellectually bankrupt position to hold, but I'd guess yes, you'll get many clapping their hands and saying HELL YES!
 
Thunder said:
Do any GOPers here believe that they were right to refuse to appoint any nominee to this new agency?
Click to expand...

I believe the "by and with Advise and Consent of the Senate" clause gives them the right.

The point of which is to prevent the Executive from gaining power. In this specific case, the Legislature granted the power of the position.

Why the previous Legislature didn't consent is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
I believe the "by and with Advise and Consent of the Senate" clause gives them the right.....
Click to expand...

"by advise & consent of the Senate", doesn't mean you can refuse every single nominee because you don't like the new agency.

they are abusing their power, and Obama played a better hand.
 
Thunder said:
Do any GOPers here believe that they were right to refuse to appoint any nominee to this new agency?
Click to expand...


Abso-freakin'-lutely.!!!!!!


I give you Senator Hatch:

The president stepped off his tour bus in Kansas this week and said that, "We shouldn't be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability." Which is why I'm mystified that the president refuses to bring much-needed oversight and accountability to the massive new bureaucracy created under the onerous Dodd-Frank law that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Today the Senate will consider a nominee to head this agency. While I have no problem with the nominee, I do have problems with the structure of this new bureaucracy, which lacks critical transparency and which, with only minor bipartisan effort, can easily be reformed. Regrettably, the president has chosen to play politics rather than so much as placing a telephone call to Congress.

This new bureaucracy possesses massive and wide-ranging powers to regulate any person or business offering or selling a "financial product or service" used by Americans without adequate checks, balances, oversight, or accountability.

The CFPB has been given unprecedented authority over financial institutions and Main Street businesses offering financial services. Once confirmed, whoever becomes the CFPB director essentially answers to no one and cannot be removed even for poor performance, including unbalanced regulations.

It also has been given significant power to regulate, but there's no check and balance if those regulations go too far.

Furthermore, the CFPB is funded directly by the Federal Reserve -- not through the standard congressionally approved spending process. That means little to no oversight of this new bureaucracy.

Time For Accountability At The CFPB
Click to expand...


j-mac


j-mac
 
Thunder said:
"by advise & consent of the Senate", doesn't mean you can refuse every single nominee because you don't like the new agency.

they are abusing their power, and Obama played a better hand.
Click to expand...


Obama may have broken the law.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Abso-freakin'-lutely.!!!!!!...
Click to expand...

the proper way to fix an agency that you feel is poorly constructed, is to pass a new law fixing it.

filibustering EVERY nominee to head the agency, is an abuse of the filibuster & Senate approval process.
 
don't you get it? when Conservative Republicans do things...its good.

when Liberal Democrats do it...its bad. No matter what the thing is.
Click to expand...

According to Liberals. According to Conservatives it is the exact opposite. Very few seem able to see a situation for what it is. Both sides refuse to accept fault or blame except when it is blatant. Both sides go out of their way to attack the other side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom