• 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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks
Nominations could provoke constitutional fight

President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board — moves Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.
The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — breaking with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days for the president to exercise his appointment power. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the argument for the three-day waiting period to the Supreme Court.

read more: Obama defies Congress with 'recess' picks - Washington Times

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.
 
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.

Yeah, but this agency also needs a director, so until the Senate and the President can come to an agreement, they have someone to serve in that capacity until the compromise can be made.
 
Yeah, but this agency also needs a director, so until the Senate and the President can come to an agreement, they have someone to serve in that capacity until the compromise can be made.

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.
 
funny, did Obama break any laws by doing this?

no, no he has not.

That is why they call it a "Constitutional crisis", as the argument is that Obama violated the Constitution. When you own DoJ successfully argues a point, then violates that same argument because it suits the President, we have a big problem.
 
That is why they call it a "Constitutional crisis", as the argument is that Obama violated the Constitution. When you own DoJ successfully argues a point, then violates that same argument because it suits the President, we have a big problem.

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:

And there is a precedent for making a recess appointment then. In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt used the instant one session was gaveled out and another was gaveled in to make a series of appointments. That is known as an “inter-session” appointment.

But Mr. Obama did not follow that route, instead choosing to make what scholars call an “intra-session” appointment, where the Constitution is far more vague.

In other words, Obama used the very ambiguity of the Constitution to his advantage.
 
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.

Except that he had himself argued otherwise, and had his own DoJ argue to SCOTUS otherwise. What you call an "ambiguity" at this level is a Constitutional crisis if the GOP wants to make it one. Obama had an absolute obligation to work with Congress. That is the law. Instead of withdrawing his appointment earlier, or negotiating the requested changes, he chose to violate protocols which had been set up to avoid these ambiguities. Obama was waiting for a "recess appointment" opportunity, which is a misuse of the intent of the Constitution to begin with. And the GOP denied a recess. All of that is/was within everyone's interpretation of the Constitution. Now the GOP is faced with breaking with protocols as well, so that we just log-jam everything. That is not effective leadership, but as Obama is not a leader, it would seem it is to be expected.
 
Recess appointments are only valid for around 9 months, I believe. Its not like Obama or any other President who uses this power, is totally circumventing the Legislative branch.
 
Bush makes recess appointments, no problem. Obama makes recess appointments, it's a constitutional crisis. For gods sake people, whether something is right or wrong is not determined by who did it.
 
Bush makes recess appointments, no problem. Obama makes recess appointments, it's a constitutional crisis. For gods sake people, whether something is right or wrong is not determined by who did it.

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.

:)
 
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.

So the appointment isn't being opposed by the Senate because of who is being nominated for the directorship but to oppose the nature of the directorship?

Even though it's the law regarding the bureau?
 
Huh...

2004
Senate Dems to Block All Nominations | Fox News

2007
Key Democrats vow to block Bush nominee - USATODAY.com


So now it's OKAY, but back then it was NOT okay? Pot meet kettle. Congress shouldn't wonder why BOTH political parties are seen as vindictive little children.

did the Democratic Senate block all Bush nominees & filibuster all Bush/GOP legislation, from 2001-2008? The Republicans have turned our country from a democracy, where the majority rules, to a super-democracy, where a super-majority is required or the minority rules.
 
did the Democratic Senate block all Bush nominees & filibuster all Bush/GOP legislation, from 2001-2008?
They certainly threatened... it's all on Wiki if you want to read it.

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Republicans have turned our country from a democracy, where the majority rules, to a super-democracy, where a super-majority is required or the minority rules.
So might makes right... is that only when there's a (D) next to the majority rule?


It's still Pot meet Kettle...
 
Bush makes recess appointments, no problem. Obama makes recess appointments, it's a constitutional crisis. For gods sake people, whether something is right or wrong is not determined by who did it.

Which misses the point. True recess appointments are valid. But when used as a political tool, that is to avoid Congressional oversight, then the Congress has its own tool bag to use. Now we have a President who is saying that he has a right to use a "literal" interpretation of the Constitution in a political way, while then denying Congress its own ability to use a literal interpretation for political gain, the latter in a way that Obama himself had argued as valid, as had his own DoJ. The point being, you cannot have it both ways. This is a clear usurption of power by one branch.
 
What is amazing is that we have a President who is so reckless with the abuse of power. When we look back to such as Reagan and Clinton, both of whom had other-party Congresses for the majority of their two terms, they both had enormously effective Presidencies because they worked with the other side. Worked things out.

Not so Obama. He is politically inept, and pretty damn stupid all things considered. To govern such as this is bad for the country. Past Presidents knew it. But not this incompetent jackass.
 
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.

your source is an article from the Washington Times, a conspiracy-theorist rag formed & owned by a man who believes he is the son of God.

got a slightly more credibly source?
 
your source is an article from the Washington Times, a conspiracy-theorist rag formed & owned by a man who believes he is the son of God.

got a slightly more credibly source?

Its all over the friggin news. How about you actually be "Progressive" and progress yourself to all the tools available to find multitides of available stories on this. ;).
 
Huh...

2004
Senate Dems to Block All Nominations | Fox News

2007
Key Democrats vow to block Bush nominee - USATODAY.com


So now it's OKAY, but back then it was NOT okay? Pot meet kettle. Congress shouldn't wonder why BOTH political parties are seen as vindictive little children.

This points to a bigger problem here. Idiology is not a reason to block apointments. If the president is allowed to pick the potential appointee, congress should have a damn good reason to block it, and that reason should not be idiology. Democrats do it, republicans do it, it's wrong. There are times I wish our politicians would grow the **** up.
 
Bush makes recess appointments, no problem. Obama makes recess appointments, it's a constitutional crisis. For gods sake people, whether something is right or wrong is not determined by who did it.

You are incorrect. The senate is NOT in recess. No president has the right to decide when another branch of our government is functioning or not functioning. The senate is not in recess based on their rules......period.
 
You are incorrect. The senate is NOT in recess. No president has the right to decide when another branch of our government is functioning or not functioning. The senate is not in recess based on their rules......period.

Too bad the source argues otherwise. So much for "period".
 
Further, while I do not have it in front of me, the exact law that formed this new agency (Dodd-Frank I believe) states that the person appointed must be approved by Congress. Not that it can be a Recess Appointment. That is how it was written and passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom