• 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.

Did you miss the financial crisis? Great Recession ring any bells? Never read any of the hundreds of stories about people who were sold ARMs with balloon payments?

So what? If they signed it and you can prove they were incompetent you should treated them as incompetent.

Have you ever bought a house yourself?

Yes.

Do you think you understood the 30 or so pages of six-point legalese in the contract? I'll bet you didn't.

Sure I do. I don't sign what I don't understand.

That's no slam against you; almost no one does. But people buy houses every day and generally have to trust the bank or mortgage broker that there are no hidden surprises.

Same goes for credit cards and all sorts of other transactions. I don't know about you, but every few months I get a "privacy statement" or something of the sort from a credit card company announcing changes to the terms of the credit card contract. Again, it's page after page of complex legalese that most people simply don't have the education to understand.

If they sign what they don't understand no one is at fault but them. You don't sign what you don't understand, period.

I doubt you would feel that way if YOU were the one being discriminated against. If that was the case I don't think you'd feel that the absence of discrimination laws made you free at all. In fact I think you'd feel kind of like a slave, or second class citizen.

A slave for not being able to do business with whoever you please?


I assure you that it's very necessary. In any transaction involving a giant financial institution and a typical consumer there is a huge imbalance of power and knowledge in favor of the financial institution. You want to hire a lawyer every time you buy a toaster?

I don't need to hire a lawyer to understand a contract, thanks.
 
Last edited:
No, I was correct. You are located in the United States, right?

A Representative Republic.

You know the difference between a republic and a democracy, yes?
 
Nope, still wrong. Try again...


j-mac

You don't get extra credit for being wrong repeatedly. You should give up now.
 
A Representative Republic.

You know the difference between a republic and a democracy, yes?

I know that a Republic is a form of representative democracy.
 
No, I was correct. You are located in the United States, right?

No, we are a Representitive Republic.

But what is a republic and how is it different from a pure democracy?

When Americans pledge allegiance to the “flag of the United States of America,” they uphold “the republic for which it stands.” Unlike a democracy in which the citizens themselves pass laws, in a republic such as ours, citizens rule through the representatives they elect.

The Framers founded a republic because they recognized that mob rule could be just as great a threat to liberty as the rule of a king. Representation, Madison explains in Federalists 63, is “sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” America’s constitutional framework thereby seeks to protect the people from the dangers of unchecked popular democracy. The people’s representatives, of course, remain ultimately accountable to the people who can vote them out of office as they see fit.

In everyday speech, people praise democracy as the most just form of government. What they mean by “democracy” is a regime in which free elections regularly take place and a government that protects the rights of all.

Is America a Democracy or a Republic?

Now I realize that libs like yourself and the OWS crowd are trying to turn this country into a pure democracy, but keep in mind that is not what we are, nor what the founders envisioned.

j-mac
 
I know that a Republic is a form of representative democracy.

No, a democracy pits your interests against mine to see who wins. A republic just protects the rights and liberties of people and treats all peoples interests as equal.
 
A Representative Republic.

You know the difference between a republic and a democracy, yes?
To be specific, we are a constitutionally limited democratic republic. In fact the first political party which is now simply the Democratic party was called the Democratic Republicans - we are both a Democracy and a Republic.
 
To be specific, we are a constitutionally limited democratic republic. In fact the first political party which is now simply the Democratic party was called the Democratic Republicans - we are both a Democracy and a Republic.
Or, not a republic at all, but a federation of republics. The states are the republics. The union is a federal compact among these republics.
 
The Senate has followed the proper protocols. Protocols that Obama's own Justice Department argued for. These protocols compel a President to act with the advice and consent of Congress. Such advice and consent Obama has shunned. Now Obama has taken a further unprecedented step to take power from the Legislative. The community organizer needs to be shown the door.

Were you this outraged way back when??

Bush Names Bolton U.N. Ambassador in Recess Appointment


The obstructionists in the GOP have been stalling on filling a position that was created TWO YEARS AGO.

and the Foxies will blame this on Obama?? Seriously?
 
Does anyone remember where Reid held nonsense sessions from 2007-2008 to prevent Bush's ability to make another recess appointment?
 
The GOP vs. the U.S. Constitution.

Well, they've been trying to undo the 2008 elections for four years... Why not wipe their ass with explicit Presidential powers?
 
Or, not a republic at all, but a federation of republics. The states are the republics. The union is a federal compact among these republics.

True. Thanks for the correction. :)
 
The GOP vs. the U.S. Constitution.

Well, they've been trying to undo the 2008 elections for four years... Why not wipe their ass with explicit Presidential powers?

sort of like what the dems did in 2000?
 
Does anyone remember where Reid held nonsense sessions from 2007-2008 to prevent Bush's ability to make another recess appointment?

Yes. It was ridiculous.

Recess appointments are a power specifically granted by the US constitution to the president. For congress to hold bull**** non-sessions with the specific intention of blocking recess appointments is a blatant attempt to circumvent the constitution and grab more power for themselves.

Anyone thinking themselves a "strict constitutionalist" or whatever should be against this move by congress, regardless of whether or not the Democrats have previously used the same childish tactic.

Nobody likes Harry Reid. He only got re-elected because the GOP ran a woman against him who is literally senile and paranoid. And he barely beat her.
 
Last edited:
The Senate has followed the proper protocols. Protocols that Obama's own Justice Department argued for. These protocols compel a President to act with the advice and consent of Congress. Such advice and consent Obama has shunned. Now Obama has taken a further unprecedented step to take power from the Legislative. The community organizer needs to be shown the door.

This is a classic case of the White House figuring that Politics > Constitution.

Harry Reid in particular looks like an idiot with his simpering about-face on this issue.
 
In a way I guess, as it is a freedom argument of sorts, but beyond that, its not all that comparable. This is the government finding a problem and deciding a solution on it. The EPA, the FCC, and the CFPB does this everyday. Most of which aren't even problems to begin with, but that is a different subject.

A freedom argument? That is a meaningless and hollow word all by itself. Please put some context to it. The freedom to do what exactly?
 
Yes. It was ridiculous.

Recess appointments are a power specifically granted by the US constitution to the president. For congress to hold bull**** non-sessions with the specific intention of blocking recess appointments is a blatant attempt to circumvent the constitution and grab more power for themselves.

it is certainly a case of Congress refusing to grant the President an opportunity to legitimately pursue his power in a way that encroaches upon their own. However, your subjective description of it as a "BS Non-Session" is irrelevant. The Senate was legally in session - ergo, recess appointments are illegitimate. The President no more has the power to recess appointment today than he does on any given weekend when the Congress isn't meeting.

Anyone thinking themselves a "strict constitutionalist" or whatever should be against this move, regardless of whether or not the Democrats have previously used the same childish tactic.

appointment is important - frankly, I'd like some alteration of the rules wherein the Senate has a given time frame (say, 90 days in session) to hold an up-or-down vote, and then the appointment is considered to have gone through.

But You Have To Follow The Law. That is what holding to the Constitution is all about, after all. If you don't like the law, change it. Until then, follow it.
 
The GOP vs. the U.S. Constitution.

Well, they've been trying to undo the 2008 elections for four years... Why not wipe their ass with explicit Presidential powers?

.... You DO realize that Harry Reid invented this tactic, in order to keep George Bush from making recess appointments??? That President Obama supported this when he was a Senator?
 
.... You DO realize that Harry Reid invented this tactic, in order to keep George Bush from making recess appointments??? That President Obama supported this when he was a Senator?


Ofcourse he realizes that. Hazelnut's posting is akin to attempting to be the guy provoking emotional response. This is why he believes that the more outrageous he can be in his language, the more chance he has to show his own ass. Probably trying make up for a shortcoming in other places.

But see, I don't see Obama as caring one little bit about what he is doing to the Constitution or anything else. This is a 'by any means necessary' kind of politician. Obama knows full well that by doing this he is trashing the Constitution, injecting uncertainty into business again, and purposely enraging his opposition. And he knows that the minute that his his little ass puppet Cordray makes one decision it'll be immediately challenged in court, and likely go nowhere until he does things the proper way.

Obama tried to do this specifically to spark severe outrage, and deflect attention from his own record of failure in the election..In that respect, repubs may be doing this right by not paying much attention to it....I mean we are, but the pols sure don't seem to be.


j-mac
 
.... You DO realize that Harry Reid invented this tactic, in order to keep George Bush from making recess appointments??? That President Obama supported this when he was a Senator?

Did Fox cover it back then and give their trusty viewers the talking points to regurgitate around the water cooler... Was W. making a "power grab" back then?

Or was it just Reid looking foolish trying to end run around the constitution?
 
Did Fox cover it back then and give their trusty viewers the talking points to regurgitate around the water cooler... Was W. making a "power grab" back then?


Did Bush appoint anyone during pro forma sessions?

Or was it just Reid looking foolish trying to end run around the constitution?

Yes


j-mac
 
73 pages on a non-issue.
 
73 pages on a non-issue.

You expected differently? Some of our posters can take this long explaining why Obama is a socialist.
 
You expected differently? Some of our posters can take this long explaining why Obama is a socialist.

Silly response. This is an issue. And eventually the courts will make a decision. One way or the other....
 
Back
Top Bottom