• 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!

Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

tererun said:
like i have said in other places those who created the constitution never saw the treasonous republican party of the present day who wish to destroy the country because they do not like the black president. This is why they need a procedure that allows them the ability to approve appointments without the ability to sabotage the government. These are not bills or laws that the country can operate without, these are positions which need to be filled.
Click to expand...

Political opposition as treason, eh? I wasn't around here when Bush invaded Iraq, but I recall that liberals were being accused of treason for opposing the war effort. I'd love to know how you reacted to that.

Using parliamentary procedures to block an act is as old as democracy itself. Those procedures place protections in the process to keep stupid and rash things from being done, to keep the minority from being totally steamrolled, and so on. To equate it with sabotage is silly.
 
The problem is not the rules themselves, it is how the rules have been abused. How can you have a functional government when many important positions have not been filled because the candidates for these positions are not even given a hearing or a up or down vote?
 
MaggieD said:
To me, it's all about balance of powers and compromise...something Congress and the White House must have in order for our country to function more smoothly. Right now, Obama's getting some payback, I guess. I'm not familiar enough with his prior nominees and the various hearings on them have gone. It is not in the best interests of the President of the United States to take hard lines are every turn. And on important issues during Obama's term? That's exactly what's happened.

Just because a particular president can't get his nominees approved is not adequate reason to amend the Constitution, in my opinion. Obama is reaping some of which he's sown. The Sotomayor confirmation is evidence enough that "the system" works.
Click to expand...

We have the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government. We have a House and Senate and that is the makeup of the congress... Of course we have the SCOTUS and the president.

Of course we are taught these facts in school, however the rules go beyond that in several ways. The president is nothing, the congress (House and Senate) and veto anything, the SCOTUS can veto the president.

The President has little to no power - he is nothing more than a spokesman - he just gets a lot of time on TV.
 
tererun said:
it is about the only thing you can do when a bunch of toddlers pitch a hissy. When your two year old decides to stop everything because they want to pitch a fit you don't allow them to. republicans want to act like two year olds and break the country because they cannot deal with a black president and his choices then he should deal with them in the fashion that they act and get the job done.
Click to expand...

I assume you are not characterizing a US Court as being a bunch of toddlers, eh? They ARE the ones who came up with this ruling, after all.
 
tererun said:
I did not say they were wrong, just that the constitution is screwed up like normal. A job needs to get done, and like always part of congress cannot get their asses in gear and do their jobs. yes, it is their job to approve someone, but this allowing them to get away with avoiding that approval is screwed up. this is why the process needs to be changed so that they can no longer undermine the operation of america because of their bigotry.


really, that was terrible. this is the reps deliberately sabotaging the country because they don't like that black people are allowed to be anything other than slaves. If we had some sort of terrorist attack that prevented the operaion of the government as they have we would be torturing and killing people. but you are all for sabotaging america as long as it is done by a republican. nice attitude.


Yes, it is the reps fault, and they are proud as hell about it. they stopped the evil black president.

but it is good that we can see your real motives. As a constitutionalist you would obviously support the slavery, racism, sexism, and preference towards rich white elite lawyers that was enshrined in it. Some of us recognize the flaws of the people who wrote the thing, the fact it is not some divine and perfect document, and the fact it needs to be changed. remember i am not the one bragging about supporting the constitution despite many of it's clear flaws. You claimed you liked what it was about, and agreed with it's overwhelming flaws and the fact it has always worked for the power structure of white men as it was written to do.
Click to expand...

Right there is the Problem with your reasoning. You say the Constitution is screwed up. Like most Progressives and Liberals do. Moreover while you try and blame Republicans for Democrats voting against Obama. Perhaps you should read up on history before accusing Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the Country and blaming those who stood for the Rights of Blacks and Women!

Course then you shouldn't be so upset when the Chief Justice Stood Upon Constitutional Law.....evidenced.

The White House had no immediate comment, but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.

Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4, 2012, after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.

"Either the Senate is in session, or it is in recess," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. "If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in "the Recess" described in the Constitution."

Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise "the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch."

The judge rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Sentelle wrote.....snip~

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

D.C. Circuit.....and as the Chief Justice Pointed out. Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of Powers.

Of course that Counsel for the President from the Justice Dept tried to argue that the President has discretion to decide that the Senate was unable to perform its advice and consent function.

Nothing like Obama trying to get round that Constitution with playing Partisan Politics.....while trying to expand the Powers of the Presidency.
rolleyes.png
 
tererun said:
it is about the only thing you can do when a bunch of toddlers pitch a hissy. When your two year old decides to stop everything because they want to pitch a fit you don't allow them to. republicans want to act like two year olds and break the country because they cannot deal with a black president and his choices then he should deal with them in the fashion that they act and get the job done.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, there it is.................THE RACE CARD.
 
tererun said:
it is about the only thing you can do when a bunch of toddlers pitch a hissy. When your two year old decides to stop everything because they want to pitch a fit you don't allow them to. republicans want to act like two year olds and break the country because they cannot deal with a black president and his choices then he should deal with them in the fashion that they act and get the job done.
Click to expand...

I know this has been pointed out to you, but I'm not sure you understand it. It wasn't the republicans who were playing games that made these non-recess appointments unconstitutional - it was Harry Reid and the democrats. The republicans don't control the senate right now, nor did they then. Harry Reid was holding the senate out of recess.

Maybe Harry has a problem with a black president. :lamo
 
tererun said:
it is about the only thing you can do when a bunch of toddlers pitch a hissy. When your two year old decides to stop everything because they want to pitch a fit you don't allow them to. republicans want to act like two year olds and break the country because they cannot deal with a black president and his choices then he should deal with them in the fashion that they act and get the job done.
Click to expand...

Your fascination with the republicans so called hatred of a black president only shows how much of a racist you are.
 
I thought liberals always trusted the courts, why not now?
 
American said:
Uhhh, there it is.................THE RACE CARD.
Click to expand...
Hey, its the Democratic Ace in the Hole. When all logical arguing goes totally against your favor and those who disagree with your are from both sides of politics, just call Republicans racists.
 
American said:
I thought liberals always trusted the courts, why not now?
Click to expand...

Because the MS Media picked this up and got it out to the Public. Thus showing Obama got smacked down with beginning of his Second Term. So naturally they worry when the Media will flip and point out just how much of a Lame Duck Obama really is! Something they didn't have to worry about for the last 4 years. Looks Like all that is about to change.
 
MMC said:
Because the MS Media picked this up and got it out to the Public. Thus showing Obama got smacked down with beginning of his Second Term. So naturally they worry when the Media will flip and point out just how much of a Lame Duck Obama really is! Something they didn't have to worry about for the last 4 years. Looks Like all that is about to change.
Click to expand...

That's uncharacteristic of the MSM.
 
American said:
That's uncharacteristic of the MSM.
Click to expand...

Well Boy Blunder Jay Carney said this was an Unprecedented move by the Fed Court of Appeals. Yet not once during his Press Conference did any point to him about Good Ole Harry being the Cause of this Fiasco.

So yesterday after the Chief Justice that ruled on this heard Obama and Carney. He only had one thing to say.....The Constitution backs our Ruling. So he isn't even concerned about Obama taking it to the SCOTUS. Can't change the wording Now. Plus Carney lied about the other appointment. Which is in Appeals as well.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.

The case challenging the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a Washington state bottling company that claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed.

All three vacancies on the labor board had been open for months before Obama acted to fill them.

If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.....snip~

Obama Labor Board Recess Appointments Are Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules

I just luv the part where Huff-Po says eventually will happen with Consumer Protection Bureau. Do you think that should give those on the left some insight as to where this is headed? Arent you glad we got Boy Blunder trying to spin of the MS media again their version of the Narrative. :lol:
 
MMC said:
Right there is the Problem with your reasoning. You say the Constitution is screwed up. Like most Progressives and Liberals do. Moreover while you try and blame Republicans for Democrats voting against Obama. Perhaps you should read up on history before accusing Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the Country and blaming those who stood for the Rights of Blacks and Women!

Course then you shouldn't be so upset when the Chief Justice Stood Upon Constitutional Law.....evidenced.

The White House had no immediate comment, but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.

Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4, 2012, after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.

"Either the Senate is in session, or it is in recess," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. "If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in "the Recess" described in the Constitution."

Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise "the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch."

The judge rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Sentelle wrote.....snip~

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

D.C. Circuit.....and as the Chief Justice Pointed out. Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of Powers.

Of course that Counsel for the President from the Justice Dept tried to argue that the President has discretion to decide that the Senate was unable to perform its advice and consent function.

Nothing like Obama trying to get round that Constitution with playing Partisan Politics.....while trying to expand the Powers of the Presidency.
rolleyes.png
Click to expand...

The ease in which the expansion, not only of the power of the Presidency but also the Federal Government has taken place is a clear indicator that the Constitution IS "screwed up".
 
ChezC3 said:
The ease in which the expansion, not only of the power of the Presidency but also the Federal Government has taken place is a clear indicator that the Constitution IS "screwed up".
Click to expand...

Myself.....I would say it is more so those who are doing the interpretation. Course I feel they should be psychological evaluated every 3 years to make sure they are sound of mind.
 
Good News for the Right.....Some more Bad news for the Left!



Which this what has those Democrats and liberals worried. Not counting the gun issue either.
 
I wonder if he appointed some of his corrupt union thug friends to the board.
 
MMC said:
Myself.....I would say it is more so those who are doing the interpretation. Course I feel they should be psychological evaluated every 3 years to make sure they are sound of mind.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree that those doing the interpreting come up with some real humdingers no doubt, but if the text they were interpreting wasn't so vague....

3 years?!?!?!? You know how much damage these politicians can do in 3 years???? :)
 
ChezC3 said:
Oh, I agree that those doing the interpreting come up with some real humdingers no doubt, but if the text they were interpreting wasn't so vague....

3 years?!?!?!? You know how much damage these politicians can do in 3 years???? :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Civil court already recognizes 2yrs thru the court in considering a New Psychological. So that's why I said 3. Also I would state they are not allowed to choose their own Psychologist to conduct the Evaluation. As well as that there be no more life time appointments. No more Free Rides!
 
MMC said:
Yeah, but Civil court already recognizes 2yrs thru the court in considering a New Psychological. So that's why I said 3. Also I would state they are not allowed to choose their own Psychologist to conduct the Evaluation. As well as that there be no more life time appointments. No more Free Rides!
Click to expand...

I'm likely to agree with you on ending the lifer system. Don't know for certain but I can only imagine the original reasoning behind this was to promote some sort of stability. Being one who takes the time to vote each and every incumbent judge out every election cycle regardless of party -- I definitely would like to come up with an alternative.
 
tererun said:
Presently the republicans in congress are voluntarily dysfunctional. They don't care about who obama appoints, they just want to do everything in their power to stop the operation of the government in order to pretend it is the fault of the president. It looks like it is true Obama overstepped his power in this case, but a job needed to be done and he did it despite the hissy fit congressional republicans are throwing. Sure, the president should face whatever penalties come from such an overstep, but almost the entirety of the republican congress should all face treason charges for their attempts to sabotage the country and make it fail because they don't like the president.

Considering the recent fit of the reps, and what it has done to damage this country by deliberately undermining it I think we certainly need some new rules regarding appointments. We should end the ability for a party to keep necessary positions vacant like this because they hate america. The best solution i see is to have the president nominate at least 3 choices and then have congress forced to pick one of them. That would end this whole thing, allow congress to do their job and approve appointments without allowing them to tank the government for fun and profit.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your post except the "they hate America" part. I wouldn't even say that many Republicans hate Pres. Obama; but I would say they don't like him very much for two very obvious reasons, neither of which bare repeating because they've been outlined in this forum consistently over the last four years. With that said, it's time the GOP stopped being such obstructionist and just get on with the business of helping to improve conditions in this country on a number of fronts.
 
As to the issue at hand concerning the President's recess appointments, I think folks should also read this segment from the OP article:

The court's decision acknowledges that it conflicts with what other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.

Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.
Click to expand...

Simply put: If prior federal appeals courts have upheld these same types of pro forma recess appointment by sitting Presidents in the past, there's no way the SCOUS will uphold the lower court's ruling because the precidence for such Presidential appoints has long been established.

Although I did find other articles and/or white papers that addressed the parameters of Presidential recess appointments conducted in the past, I thought this article summarized the issue much clearer, "President's Power to Recess Appoint". What's in question is simply this: "Do pro forma recesses constitute an break from Congress conducting their normal day-to-day business or is it merely a mechanism used by the minority party in Congress to block Presidential recess appointments much as the filibuster is used to block passage of Senate legislation?"

In short, if all you're doing is taking attendance, reading some letter from grandma before the Senate President Pro Tempe or just gavelling in to chew the fat then gavel out to leave after a 5 minute water cooler chat, do such brief interactions by members of Congress constitute Congress as being in full recess per the Constitution, which reads:

Art. II, Sect. 2:

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Click to expand...

Notice that there's nothing in this section of the Constitution that sets a limit on how long Congress must be in recess before the President can make his recess appointment. However, here's what Art. I, Sect. 5 says on the matter of Congressional recesses and adjournments:

Clause 1:
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Click to expand...

Clause 4:
Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Click to expand...

Doesn't say that the Congress must be adjourned (or in recess) for no less than 3-days before a recess appointment can be made; just that no House of Congress - House of Reps or the Senate - can adjourn for more than 3 days without the consent of the other.

In my view, the President's recess appointments are Constitutional. Once the Senate "gavels out", they're no longer in session and, therefore, ARE in recess even if only for a minute.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Funny how all the supposed supporters of strict constitutionalism are backing the GOP in their blatant attempt to circumvent the constitution.

I'm glad a president stepped up to try and end this obstructionist practice. (Which both parties engage in) I hope the appointments are upheld on appeal.
Click to expand...

In case you missed it, it is not the GOP circumventing the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom