• 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.

We are supposed to be a system of checks and balances libs. What you just got now is a further erosion of such. so that a Republican President can do same, thus denying a hostile minority from its prior Constitutional authority. All of you are in an outrage that teh Senate blocks nominations. WTF are they supposed to do ... pass all of a Presidents appointees ? What kind of system is that ?
Click to expand...

They are suppose to make sure appointees are qualified, not leave departments with missing people in order to get legislative concessions. There's a process for changing legislation.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

ARealConservative said:
Liberals only care about power grabs when a republican is doing it and vice versa.

This is the government we deserve.
Click to expand...

its not a power grab, when the GOP refuses to allow the appointment of ANYONE to head an agency.

when such extreme circumstances exist, extreme solutions are needed.
 
iliveonramen said:
They are suppose to make sure appointees are qualified, not leave departments with missing people in order to get legislative concessions. There's a process for changing legislation.
Click to expand...

yeah, and the GOP says: "**** that!!! we may not have the votes to kill the new agency, but we sure can abuse the appointment process to make sure they have no head!!!"

with such petty games going on, Obama is right to do what he did.
 
Thunder said:
how come no one is complaining about the GOP refusing to allow the appointment of ANYONE to this position, as a way of opposing the new agency?

is this the right & appropriate use of the confirmation process?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is part of the way political power, as enabled by the Constitution, has always been used. Again, its a part of the checks and balances. The Democrats have done this same sort of stalling. But both parties played by the rules. Both used the 3-day gavel rule when they thought it important enough. Further, Obama had the window to make a proper Recess Appointment one day prior, but which would have only been good thru 2012. By breaking the rules, Cordray now serves through 2013. Care to explain that ?
 
Zyphlin said:
When Bush used loopholes and ambiguity of the rules, or broke from tradition, Democrats whined and wailed about it. They did it with Bush doing reconciliation on a primarily budgetary bill, then turned around and attempted to use it on a Health Care Bill. They complained about recess appointments when Bolton got named to the U.N.

Are some Republicans being hypocritical here? To a point yes. So are some Democrats. And if we’re being honest, the two situations are not identical since Obama is not just doing a recess appointment but doing so in a fashion that has largely been unused for over a century and is “ambiguous” at best constitutionally. Bush’s ,by and large to my memory, were standard style recess appointments but simply of people who were undergoing strict scrutiny just prior to the recess with little chance of being confirmed.

What I will say is this…in a year or five, if the Republicans win back the White House, my sympathy for democrats if Republicans start using the same stretches and ambiguity as they have been threatening and actually doing with regards to this kind of stuff will be nil. I won’t support the Republicans doing it, but I’ll have no sympathy for Democrats who supported pushing the boundary further then said action comes back to haunt them.
Click to expand...

It can't be denied that there is a level of hypocrisy involved, but in my opinion this is not an apples/apples comparison. Democrats blocked Bush appointees because they objected to the nominees, which is the purpose of the advice and consent process. Republicans were blocking Cordray not because they objected to him, but because they objected to the existence of the agency to which he had been appointed. They made no bones about that, stating quite clearly that they would not approve ANY nominee unless or until Democrats agreed to amend that law that had already passed by a super majority. That was an improper use of the advice and consent power and it is is the main distinction between what Democrats did and what Republicans were trying to do.

Since Democrats took back the Senate Republicans have abused the rules of the Senate to an unprecedented extent. For the good of the country, I would hope that Democrats rise above that level if the Republicans should retake the Senate, but I can't say I'm sanguine about the prospects.
 
iliveonramen said:
They are suppose to make sure appointees are qualified, not leave departments with missing people in order to get legislative concessions. There's a process for changing legislation.
Click to expand...

Show me where that is how the process is to work ? Are you saying that the Founders did not understand, and anticipate, politics ? The GOP was using their Constitutional Powers to stymie what they saw as Executive overreach. That is a perfectly proper political concern.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Another logic fail. The procedural methods do not bypass the Constitution. They are there as part of the process intended by the Founders. While the concept of Recess Appointments has certainly taken on power likely not originally intended, so too did the Senate have the power to check such, when it truly wanted to.

Now, by Obama's new definition, the President can make a Recess Appointment on any weekend. Are you happy ?
Click to expand...

It's not failed logic....failed logic is trying to run a government where every freaking action turns into a major fight.

You wanna change legislation? There's a process for that.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Thunder said:
its not a power grab, when the GOP refuses to allow the appointment of ANYONE to head an agency.

when such extreme circumstances exist, extreme solutions are needed.
Click to expand...

never said this was a power grab.

What Obama did is not a right, it is a power. He has the power to do recess appointments, and the senate has the power to throw them out when they reconvene.

That is why it is ok in what he did. The nonsense about extreme circumstances is idiotic though. They rightly have the power to reject his choices, no sense crying about it.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Another logic fail. The procedural methods do not bypass the Constitution. They are there as part of the process intended by the Founders. While the concept of Recess Appointments has certainly taken on power likely not originally intended, so too did the Senate have the power to check such, when it truly wanted to.
Click to expand...

And do you think the founding fathers had the intent that congress was in session if a gavel was hit and so called in session for 40 seconds? I don't think so.

The GOP was playing games and got called on it. Look, you guys want to be in session, then have it really be in session and not this mickey mouse games.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Show me where that is how the process is to work ? Are you saying that the Founders did not understand, and anticipate, politics ? The GOP was using their Constitutional Powers to stymie what they saw as Executive overreach. That is a perfectly proper political concern.
Click to expand...

there is only one Constitutional way to oppose the creation of a new agency, and that is to vote it out of existence. if you don't have the votes, you're **** out of luck.

using the appointment process to offset their lack of votes, is an abuse of power & the Constitution. The GOP has some ****ing nerve accusing Obama of anything.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Show me where that is how the process is to work ? Are you saying that the Founders did not understand, and anticipate, politics ? The GOP was using their Constitutional Powers to stymie what they saw as Executive overreach. That is a perfectly proper political concern.
Click to expand...

The bill passed the freaking Legislative branch. Please show me where appointing someone to a position that was created via the legislative process is executive over reach!
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Show me where that is how the process is to work ? Are you saying that the Founders did not understand, and anticipate, politics ? The GOP was using their Constitutional Powers to stymie what they saw as Executive overreach. That is a perfectly proper political concern.
Click to expand...

Appointing the head of a duly created agency was "executive overreach"? On what planet?
 
AdamT said:
It can't be denied that there is a level of hypocrisy involved, but in my opinion this is not an apples/apples comparison. Democrats blocked Bush appointees because they objected to the nominees, which is the purpose of the advice and consent process. Republicans were blocking Cordray not because they objected to him, but because they objected to the existence of the agency to which he had been appointed. They made no bones about that, stating quite clearly that they would not approve ANY nominee unless or until Democrats agreed to amend that law that had already passed by a super majority. That was an improper use of the advice and consent power and it is is the main distinction between what Democrats did and what Republicans were trying to do.

Since Democrats took back the Senate Republicans have abused the rules of the Senate to an unprecedented extent. For the good of the country, I would hope that Democrats rise above that level if the Republicans should retake the Senate, but I can't say I'm sanguine about the prospects.
Click to expand...

In other words, a Senate recess is now defined by an empty room, and now we get to add how we feel when laws are applied. Amazing logic, and thanks for the awesome precedent.
 
TheNextEra said:
And do you think the founding fathers had the intent that congress was in session if a gavel was hit and so called in session for 40 seconds? I don't think so.

The GOP was playing games and got called on it. Look, you guys want to be in session, then have it really be in session and not this mickey mouse games.
Click to expand...

The Senate is in recess when the room is empty. Got it.
 
Samhain said:
In other words, a Senate recess is now defined by an empty room, and now we get to add how we feel when laws are applied. Amazing logic, and thanks for the awesome precedent.
Click to expand...

do you think the founding fathers considered a senate in session if it was done for only 40 seconds? I don't think so. The GOP was playing games and nothing more.
 
Samhain said:
In other words, a Senate recess is now defined by an empty room, and now we get to add how we feel when laws are applied. Amazing logic, and thanks for the awesome precedent.
Click to expand...

In fact a recess should be defined by reality -- not parlor tricks designed to circumvent the rules. Likewise, laws are laws when they are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Constitution does not grant the Senate a second, sore losers bite at the apple because they are unhappy with the law that they passed.
 
Samhain said:
The Senate is in recess when the room is empty. Got it.
Click to expand...

And to you an empty room with one guy, a gavel, and 40 seconds is considered in session, got it.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure, and a session lasts 40 seconds with one guy beating a gavel.
Click to expand...

And that's the way its been done for years. If you have a problem with the current Senate doing pro-forma sessions, perhaps you should complain to the Senator Reed, ya know, the majority leader.
 
Samhain said:
And that's the way its been done for years. If you have a problem with the current Senate doing pro-forma sessions, perhaps you should complain to the Senator Reed, ya know, the majority leader.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining, the appointments happened. You're the one complaining.
 
misterman said:
What rule did he break exactly?

If you can't tell us, then you're breaking the rule against saying things that aren't true.
Click to expand...

use of military force in Libya

On Legislative authority (Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI-XVI):

"The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
 
Thunder said:
there is only one Constitutional way to oppose the creation of a new agency, and that is to vote it out of existence. if you don't have the votes, you're **** out of luck.

using the appointment process to offset their lack of votes, is an abuse of power & the Constitution. The GOP has some ****ing nerve accusing Obama of anything.
Click to expand...

iliveonramen said:
The bill passed the freaking Legislative branch. Please show me where appointing someone to a position that was created via the legislative process is executive over reach!
Click to expand...

Folks, the actions by Senate Republicans, and the 3-day gavel, was within the rules and the process. Dodd Frank was passed by a Democrat super-majority in the summer of 2010. Then the voters chimed in in Nov 2010, did they not ? So the new political lay of the land has the power to do what it wants, within the rules, and at the behest of those who voted them in. What is valid in politics folks is all that the rules allow.

Further, when passed, Dodd Frank specifically states that the Director will be confirmed by the Senate. It does not say that it can be a Recess Appointment, if the President so chooses. It goes out of its way to state that the Director must be confirmed by the Senate.

What you get from this folks is a further power grab by the Executive. An erosion of our system. What goes around comes around, and we are no better for it when its a further breakdown of our process.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
And that's the way its been done for years. If you have a problem with the current Senate doing pro-forma sessions, perhaps you should complain to the Senator Reed, ya know, the majority leader.
Click to expand...

Ahh so you do support parlor tricks. Just because noone other than Obama has called the senate out on this ridiculousness doesn't make this so called "in session" parlor tricks correct, right, or legal.

It's being challenged and I think rightfully so.
 
Samhain said:
And that's the way its been done for years. If you have a problem with the current Senate doing pro-forma sessions, perhaps you should complain to the Senator Reed, ya know, the majority leader.
Click to expand...

Well that's what happens when you tear up the rule book and stop doing things the way they've been done for years. After a while the other side is going to wake and up say, "**** this, we can play that game too."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom