• 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.

Two former Bush Justice officials in 2010, saying the pro forma sessions are a sham, and the President should call the Senate on their bluff to usurp Presidential authority:


Call the Senate's bluff on recess appointments
By Steven G. Bradbury and John P. Elwood
Friday, October 15, 2010


(snip ... )

In a 1905 report that the Senate still considers authoritative, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a "Recess of the Senate" occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its functions and when it cannot "participate as a body in making appointments." The committee cautioned that a "recess" means "something actual, not something fictitious." The executive branch has long taken the same common-sense view. In 1921, citing opinions of his predecessors dating back to the Monroe administration, Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty argued that the question "is whether in a practical sense the Senate is in session so that its advice and consent can be obtained. To give the word 'recess' a technical and not a practical construction, is to disregard substance for form."

The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted, and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president's nominations. That means the Senate remains in "recess" for purposes of the recess appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.

The president should consider calling the Senate's bluff by exercising his recess appointment power to challenge the use of pro forma sessions. If the Senate persists, then the federal courts may need to resolve the validity of the Senate's gambit.

The alternative will likely be greater gridlock in Washington. This practice will inevitably become the standard operating procedure, and the recess appointment power could become a virtual dead letter -- undermining what the Founders viewed as an essential tool for the effective functioning of our government.

--

The writers are Washington attorneys. From 2005 to 2009, Bradbury headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, and Elwood served as deputy assistant attorney general. Although Bradbury was nominated as assistant attorney general in 2005, his nomination was never voted on by the full Senate. Individual senators put holds on the nomination, and Senate leaders instituted pro forma sessions to prevent a recess appointment.

Call the Senate's bluff on recess appointments
 
Two former Bush Justice officials in 2010, saying the pro forma sessions are a sham, and the President should call the Senate on their bluff to usurp Presidential authority:

And Harry Reid, 2007:

On the other side of the argument at that time was Reid, who began holding pro forma sessions in 2007 to block Bush nominees.

"I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made," he said on the Senate floor in 2008, as Democrats blocked a potential recess appointment of Steven Bradbury to be the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration. Bradbury is one of the attorneys cited by the Obama White House in justifying the Cordray move.
 
And Harry Reid, 2007:

The difference between now and 2007 is that, in 2007, the Democrats held pro-forma sessions every day, to stymie Bush appointees, and since the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time, 51-49, they were able to do this. This time they did not, because the Democrats still control the Senate, and decided not to hold a pro forma-session on the day Obama made his appointments. Was it a Democratic conspiracy to install Obama's appointees? You bet it was, but it was legal too, since Democrats control the Senate.
 
WTF are you talking about? Every agency promulgates rules. That's why we have the Administrative Procedures Act.

The rules are in section 1066 of the law. You dont get to rewrite the pertinent sections of the law. Congress has to do that. Keep in mind this is a left leaning source, which is why I chose it. http://news.wolterskluwerlb.com/media/CFPBBriefing08-11.pdf

Although the CFPB can exercise its transferred functions
authorities, the Inspectors General’s analysis noted that
the agency’s newly-established federal consumer financial
regulatory authorities cannot be exercised by Treasury
under its Section 1066 interim authority. These new powers
only can be exercised by a Senate-confirmed director.

I thought Id toss this in as well : The Dodd-Frank Act

Dodd Frank Act Section 1066
SEC. 1066. INTERIM AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011.

WTF am I talking about? The dang law. I dont know wtf you are talking about though.
 
Last edited:
wait, so you're saying Reid won't allow an up or down vote on this person?

Has a vote been scheduled yet? Have the confirmation hearings even commenced? Not that I am aware of.

Reid sets the agenda for the Senate, he is the Senate leader and it is his job to do so.
 
you are correct, and that is exactly what the Republicans have done.

they have turned the Constitution into tiolet paper. They have turned the Senate into an off-off-Broadway show. A very bad one.

How?

You Lefties are blaming all this on Repubs...when was the confirmation hearing scheduled? When was it voted on? When did the Repubs actually filibuster the confirmation?

Here is a hint...no confirmation hearing has been scheduled, no vote ever took place and no Repubs have filibustered.

This whole situation is made up and the lemmings on BOTH sides are fighting tooth and nail over it.

Obama abused his powers and his lemming supporters are making up every excuse in the world to defend it. Just as the Repub lemmings supported it when Bush did it.
 
oh, so you expect the Democrats to filibuster every single bill the GOP tries to make law?

you expect the Democrats to filibuster every judicial nominee?

you expect the Democrats to make believe they are in session when they are really off for the winter, in order to prevent an entire Federal agency from functioning?

Again, the Republicans cant put the Senate back in session, only Reid can.
 
yes, they have shown their utmost disrespect towards the Senate & democracy.

don't have enough votes to pass a bill? that's ok, all you have to do is abuse the filibuster rule & make believe you're in session when you're really on vacation, thereby peventing Recess appointment and keeping an entire federal agency from functioning.

real patriotic stuff.

You keep touting that the Repubs are filibustering the confirmation...please show us how? They cant filibuster neither a vote or hearing has been scheduled.
 
The rules are in section 1066 of the law. You dont get to rewrite the pertinent sections of the law. Congress has to do that. Keep in mind this is a left leaning source, which is why I chose it. http://news.wolterskluwerlb.com/media/CFPBBriefing08-11.pdf



I thought Id toss this in as well : The Dodd-Frank Act



WTF am I talking about? The dang law. I dont know wtf you are talking about though.

Excellent post OC. And this is why Obama knows the moment that ANY regulation, or rule passed on now by this board, will find itself in court so fast, heads will spin...I wonder why Obama would not want a board to help the people to actually work?....Oh yeah, It's all BS for his re election campaign.

This is real Chicago political thuggery. Any cost, even our constitutional stability, as long as the end in their minds, justify the action.

j-mac
 
...You Lefties are blaming all this on Repubs...when was the confirmation hearing scheduled? When was it voted on? When did the Repubs actually filibuster the confirmation?

Here is a hint...no confirmation hearing has been scheduled, no vote ever took place and no Repubs have filibustered.

This whole situation is made up and the lemmings on BOTH sides are fighting tooth and nail over it.

Obama abused his powers and his lemming supporters are making up every excuse in the world to defend it. Just as the Repub lemmings supported it when Bush did it.

the appointment was filibustered on Dec. 8th.

on January 4th, neither the House nor Senate were in session, making Obama's recess appointments perfectly legal.
 
the appointment was filibustered on Dec. 8th.

on January 4th, neither the House nor Senate were in session, making Obama's recess appointments perfectly legal.


You keep repeating a fundamental question here, and it has been posted for quite some time now by not only myself, but others as well. I am going to give you ONE last chance....

According to Article 1 Section 5 of the United States Constitution, Neither house can adjourn for recess without the consent of the other. Now, if you are so darned confident that the Senate was adjourned to recess on January 4th, 2012, then I am sure you can show us the consent of the house for them to do so, and the actual gavel minutes adjourning? Without that you are talking out of your ass.

j-mac
 
You keep repeating a fundamental question here, and it has been posted for quite some time now by not only myself, but others as well. I am going to give you ONE last chance....

According to Article 1 Section 5 of the United States Constitution, Neither house can adjourn for recess without the consent of the other. Now, if you are so darned confident that the Senate was adjourned to recess on January 4th, 2012, then I am sure you can show us the consent of the house for them to do so, and the actual gavel minutes adjourning? Without that you are talking out of your ass.

j-mac

check the calendar of Congressional activity. neither house was in session on January 4th, which makes any Recess Appointments by POTUS legal.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1122.html
 
They were in pro forma session because there was no recess pursuant to Article 1 Section 5. Thanks for proving my point.


j-mac

and if the GOP is going to hold pro forma sessions ALL year long, thereby trying to prevent the President from making any recess appointments, the President is right to do what he did.

if the GOP is gonna **** around with the rules, Obama should do the same.

don't like it? take it to court.
 
and if the GOP is going to hold pro forma sessions ALL year long, thereby trying to prevent the President from making any recess appointments, the President is right to do what he did.

if the GOP is gonna **** around with the rules, Obama should do the same.

don't like it? take it to court.


Oh that is where it is headed...And Obama will lose this one. Rules are rules whether you like them or not.

So I take it that you are conceding that Obama violated Article 1 Section 5, and circumvented the rules of the congress by is installation of these people?

j-mac
 
The completely undisguised gay slur you posted above puts the lie to your claim. Or maybe you're just drunk or stoned?

Maybe you need to get informed:

Barney Frank knocked on his Fannie

Rep admits to helping lover land job at mortgage giant in ’91

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank admitted he helped his ex-lover land a lucrative post with Fannie Mae in the early 1990s while the Newton Democrat was on a committee that regulated the lending giant — but he called questions of a potential ethical conflict “nonsense.”

“If it is (a conflict of interest), then much of Washington is involved (in conflicts),” Frank told the Herald last night. “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”

read here doofus: Barney Frank knocked on his Fannie - BostonHerald.com

Which actually lends far more credence to my point about Frank, conflict of interest (Fannie and Freddie not regulated under Dodd-Frank) and a very appropriate quip about Barney and his fannie's fannie at fannie being a further part of the lack of confidence in Frank !!

Basically, before you go ad-hom again, due to your being ignorant to the subject discussed, maybe STFU a little and get informed.
 
Oh that is where it is headed...And Obama will lose this one. Rules are rules whether you like them or not.

So I take it that you are conceding that Obama violated Article 1 Section 5, and circumvented the rules of the congress by is installation of these people?

j-mac

sorry, but Article 1 Section 5 is rules for Congress, not for the President.

either way, did 51 Senators show up for work on January 4th?

no? then they were unable to vote on any laws.

if you don't have a quorum, then you cannot conduct business, and you are not really in session.
 
False. What the GOP is doing is a partisan maneuver. What Obama is doing is not.

Recess appointments are a partisan maneuver. Further, as discussed in another thread here, the two Democrats he put on the NLRB Board the same day via Recess Appointment were never submitted to the Senate while it was in regular session ! Just straight to appointment !! Whooo Hooo, eh ?
 
Recess appointments are a partisan maneuver. Further, as discussed in another thread here, the two Democrats he put on the NLRB Board the same day via Recess Appointment were never submitted to the Senate while it was in regular session!...

what day were these appointments made?

how many Senators showed up for work that day?
 
Maybe you need to get informed:



Which actually lends far more credence to my point about Frank, conflict of interest (Fannie and Freddie not regulated under Dodd-Frank) and a very appropriate quip about Barney and his fannie's fannie at fannie being a further part of the lack of confidence in Frank !!

Basically, before you go ad-hom again, due to your being ignorant to the subject discussed, maybe STFU a little and get informed.

Sorry, but it was still a disparaging reference to Frank's sexual preference, and you know it.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Oh my Freakin' GAWD! you can NOT be serious here....

How does any of what you posted contradict what I said?

Just because a few congressmen think there isn't enough accountability doesn't mean there isn't.

How about you? Do you think every single government agency and department should be run by a board? We should have five Secretaries of Defense?
 
Back
Top Bottom