• 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.

Eighty Deuce said:
Bullchit. Show me where Conservatives pulled this stunt with ignoring the 3-day gavel rule ?

If you don't want to hear it, then put your hands over your ears for chrissakes. Otherwise, I cannot help it that you can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it was a political ploy. Republicans will have to take Obama to court in order to prevent someone from protecting consumers from fraud and he knows it.

Senate rules are set by the Senate. And are largely extra-Constitutional. The arguments against Obama's appointments are obvious, but carry an expensive political price. He's laying down the gauntlet and challenging Republicans to say, "We don't want consumer protections against loan fraud and predatory lending."

The courts may side with Republicans, but that carries some potential damage. They've readily admitted that they don't dislike the guy. They just want to do whatever they can to prevent this organization for existing despite the fact that it is already encoded in law.
 
teamosil said:
What the heck... The separation of powers!? The constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments explicitly. That is an executive power. It is the senate trying to take over that power with this "never officially declare recess" scheme...
Click to expand...
The Senate wasn’t in recess.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Actually, that is the point. The GOP wanted more Congressional oversight, with it being run by a Board, rather than a single entity. In any case, it is a valid political concern. And the Congress followed the established procedure, one which Obama himself, and his DoJ, had earlier endorsed.

I would hope that the GOP declares all actions by that Department as unconstitutional, not in accordance with the Law, and directs all US entities to not recognize actions by either agency. This is what happens when one skirts the Constitution. It is one more sign of hugely inept leadership by the inept moron in the WH.
Click to expand...
Let the Congress defund the organizations. That will take care of that.
 
Hatuey said:
There is no constitutional crisis here. Whether Obama waits 1 day, 3 days or 10 to appoint somebody makes absolutely no difference. Obama broke with tradition, get over it and if you don't like it, write it into the legal framework. Otherwise, much ado about nothing. From your article:



In other words, Obama used the very ambiguity of the Constitution to his advantage.
Click to expand...
He is a very ugly man. He is a tyrant. He must be defeated.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And in both cases all that it takes for the peoples voice to not be heard is a filibuster.

How about we instead find a way to force these people to actually work together that will give neither side an advantage?
Click to expand...

Okay, this is a fair point, but as long as we are making idealized changes to the constitution, why not prevent a filibuster in appointment votes? The problem is that right now there is no encouragement to work together. Both sides have been making a great show of polarizing government (note I do not say the people). I'd love to see a better fix!
 
It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days.
Click to expand...
Unprecedented

Obama needs to go because he's a dishonest, arrogant SOB.
 
Keridan said:
Okay, this is a fair point, but as long as we are making idealized changes to the constitution, why not prevent a filibuster in appointment votes? The problem is that right now there is no encouragement to work together. Both sides have been making a great show of polarizing government (note I do not say the people). I'd love to see a better fix!
Click to expand...

If filibustering wasn't so essential to preserving the rights of minorities I would easily agree with booting it out completely. As far as just for appointments goes...I would have to say no because it could possibly lead to getting rid of filibusters period.

As far as fixing the way things are done in congress...there is no single answer that will do it. But I do know that the first step MUST be in who we vote into office. We need to stop this "voting for the lesser of evils" attitude that has plagued us for the last 20 years.
 
pbrauer said:
Good for Obama, it's about time he got some balls. Let the GOP fight him in an election year. Bring it on!!
Click to expand...
Let us hope the Republicans begin to defund the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama's extra-Constitutional Czars, his office, his golf outings, his in-house entertainment evenings, and the organizations run by his "recess" appointments.

No money. No party.
 
StillBallin75 said:
There are many ways to describe the President, but if you're bringing his looks into it and think he's "very ugly" you're just being an ass.
Click to expand...

Just to be fair he may not have been thinking about his looks but in how he acts and thinks.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
They did. The GOP made it abundantly clear as to what the issues were. Do you even know ?

But Obama wanted to play politics, using one political maneuver to bypass the system of advise and consent. So the Senate GOP used another maneuver, which even Obama himself had earlier supported. A maneuver that says "No, this is too important. No gimmicks. We have to negotiate this". And what does Obama do ? He ignores the process. Violates what he had already said needed to be honored.

The country is worse for this. What a jackass you folks voted into office.
Click to expand...

My friend, you absolutely do not understand what's going on here. First, Republicans did everything possible to block the consumer protection agency from coming into existence. They filibustered the bill and still lost when the Democrats were able to muster a super majority. Not a regular majority -- a super majority. Fair enough, right?

Wrong. Then Republicans opposed Obama's preferred candidate to run the agency and made it abundantly clear that they would never accept her. Did Obama recess appoint her? No! He said okay, and he chose another candidate who was approved by the bipartisan Senate committee. This nominee is widely regarded as a very good guy -- he has been recommended by a bipartisan group of states attorneys general -- and if Republicans have any complaint about his qualifications I have yet to hear it. They don't oppose the candidate, the oppose the agency that was already passed into law by a super majority vote. This is a blatant attempt to prevent the lawfully passed law from coming into effect and that is a clear abuse of their advise and consent authority.

What you don't seem to get is that recess appointments are a time-honored tradition in Washington. Republicans are well aware of that, and so, in addition to everything mentioned above, they went ever FURTHER to obstruct the operation of government. They instituted a "pro forma" delegation to prevent the Senate from "technically" going into recess in order to prevent Obama from making recess appointments, as every other president has done. This is in essence a fraud where the Senate is actually in recess, but they keep a couple of guys around the capitol to do whatever ministerial things are necessary to prevent a technical recess under the rules.

In short, after bending and stretching the rules beyond recognition to thwart President Obama, Republicans would have to have galactic, colossal brass balls to hypocritically complain about OBAMA playing fast and loose with the rules.

I hope that makes it a little clearer.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
In Obama, we have a 100% inept narcistic POS.
Click to expand...
While I like your descriptive terms I prefer to call him the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama. But POS is easier to type. Perhaps I can work it in.
How does this look? One term Marxist president POS Barack Hussein Obama
 
Kal'Stang said:
If filibustering wasn't so essential to preserving the rights of minorities I would easily agree with booting it out completely. As far as just for appointments goes...I would have to say no because it could possibly lead to getting rid of filibusters period.

As far as fixing the way things are done in congress...there is no single answer that will do it. But I do know that the first step MUST be in who we vote into office. We need to stop this "voting for the lesser of evils" attitude that has plagued us for the last 20 years.
Click to expand...

Cordray was confirmed by a 53 majority vote if it were straight up and down, but because Republicans turn everything basically into a super-majority vote, he didn't pass.

This is what's stupid.
 
Quote'there is no single answer that will do it.'

Term limits might be the answer!
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Democrats have a majority in the Senate, yes; but because Republicans filibuster practically EVERYTHING, then Republicans have usurped control of the Senate.

While it's within the rules, they've laid the groundrules (actually, they've expanded upon what Democrats did, but have taken it to even further extremes) that everything in the Senate must have 60 votes.
Click to expand...
Usurped:

a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne>
b : to take or make use of without right

Well, what do you mean?
It sounds as if they are withing the Senate rules. The division of power is intended. It slows things down. That is also intended.
 
Last edited:
Pointy said:
Quote'there is no single answer that will do it.'

Term limits might be the answer!
Click to expand...

All that term limits would end up doing is putting people that are not experianced at politics into the game, possibly against people that do have experiance.

Besides, term limits on Congress is nothing more than a pipe dream. No one in Congress will ever seriously consider such a bill. Oh they might put it up for a vote on occasion in order to up their reputation with The People so that they can gain more votes...but it will never ever pass.
 
Misterveritis said:
Userped:

a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne>
b : to take or make use of without right

Well, what do you mean?
It sounds as if they are withing the Senate rules. The division of power is intended. It slows things down. That is also intended.
Click to expand...

The filibuster rules were never intended to be used the way that Republicans are using them. There was always a gentlemen's agreement that they should be used sparingly and only for the most serious matters.
 
DiAnna said:
If this country doesn't use the toilet paper necessary to wipe up the partisian **** stain that is our "government", we're going to implode completely into a partisian civil war... with real damned guns.
Click to expand...
I regret to say that I believe this is the most likely scenario. Men (and women) with guns will decide the issue. I will be very sorry to see it. But I know it is coming.
 
AdamT said:
The filibuster rules were never intended to be used the way that Republicans are using them. There was always a gentlemen's agreement that they should be used sparingly and only for the most serious matters.
Click to expand...

And there was also a gentlemans agreement that each side would work with each other. That imo completely ended when they drew up Obamacare behind closed doors while keeping the republican's out and then voting on it ASAP. The democrats really screwed the pooch on that one.
 
What you say is in all probability going to happen, after which we can look forward to a Totalitarian Government.
 
StillBallin75 said:
There are many ways to describe the President, but if you're bringing his looks into it and think he's "very ugly" you're just being an ass.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of his spirit than his appearance. Although I do find his blue lips to be just a bit, uh, well, ugly.
 
Misterveritis said:
I was thinking more of his spirit than his appearance. Although I do find his blue lips to be just a bit, uh, well, ugly.
Click to expand...

Huntsville, AL, eh? :roll:
 
AdamT said:
The filibuster rules were never intended to be used the way that Republicans are using them. There was always a gentlemen's agreement that they should be used sparingly and only for the most serious matters.
Click to expand...
Usurped, nevertheless, is the wrong term.

Calling for Mommy might be better.
 
GPS_Flex said:
The Senate wasn’t in recess.
Click to expand...

There was no pro-forma session in the Senate the day Obama made those appointments, which means they were in recess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom