• 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.....

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?

The problem - and the solution - lies with those who put Harry Reid in charge of the Senate.
 
As to the issue at hand concerning the President's recess appointments, I think folks should also read this segment from the OP article:



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:



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:

Clause 4:

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.

As stated in the Constitution, Article Two, Section Two...

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.

(emphasis added)

Meaning the President declared the Senate to be in recess when it was not. There is only one recess and that occurs every two years when a new Congressional session begins.

I expect that the Supreme Court will Uphold the decision. Obama sat there and waited then tried to rush in these Appointments for the NLRB.
 
Define competence.

I would define competence as achieving what they set out to do, whether constructive or destructive and whether or not it is what they claimed to be selling. In that respect Obama has been marginally competent in extending the recession, creating more poor people, and dragging the US down toward being a second class nation. If he really intended his administration as he sold it - healing the earth, slowing the rise of the oceans, ad nauseam - he has been miserably incompetent.
 
Define competence.

Heh, well it is a subjective determination...

I would say it could be measured by comparing the end results to the stated intent.
 
Heh, well it is a subjective determination...

I would say it could be measured by comparing the end results to the stated intent.

Ok, and so by that measure, can you tell me if you think the end results of Rep's v Demo's has been a success so far, concerning these appointments?
 
Ok, and so by that measure, can you tell me if you think the end results of Rep's v Demo's has been a success so far, concerning these appointments?

Well, are we talking competence or are we talking success?

Further, what was the parameters to which we are suppose to determine competence or success?

What was the stated goal? To appoint? Well than yes.
Was the stated goal to appoint following the rules and guidelines of the Constitution? Not sure, but apparently No.

Of course, I could be taking your meaning completely wrong and you're not asking my opinion on either of these two scenerios but on something completely different.

Seeing as you've asked me these questions regarding posts of mine which were in the context of light-hearted banter, I'm not sure what you're looking for?
 
Well, are we talking competence or are we talking success?

Further, what was the parameters to which we are suppose to determine competence or success?

What was the stated goal? To appoint? Well than yes.
Was the stated goal to appoint following the rules and guidelines of the Constitution? Not sure, but apparently No.

Of course, I could be taking your meaning completely wrong and you're not asking my opinion on either of these two scenerios but on something completely different.

Seeing as you've asked me these questions regarding posts of mine which were in the context of light-hearted banter, I'm not sure what you're looking for?

My goodness, it shouldn't be this hard, especially since you are the one that brought up competence....I don't get it. It is a simple question.
 
It's going to be interesting to see how this story plays out, as the Constitution does specifically allow for recess appointments. These traditionally are 'deputy' positions that need to be temporarily filled in order for government to function.

Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
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.

The National Labor Relations Board requires a quorum to take action. Making appointment to allow them to function is reasonable. This seems to be more about a Pepsi-cola bottler not liking a NLRB decision and (mis)using the court system to get the decision overturned.

It's my understanding that the Democrats tried this type of "pro forma" stunt to dissuade Bush from making recess appointments during the 2-week Thanksgiving Break, Nov. 2007.

None of the Obama recess appointments so far seem to be overly controversial, whereas Bush slipped John Bolton and Sam Fox in.
 
It's going to be interesting to see how this story plays out, as the Constitution does specifically allow for recess appointments.

But only during recess. The court ruled that only the Senate, and not the president, can decide when it is in recess.
 
But only during recess. The court ruled that only the Senate, and not the president, can decide when it is in recess.

Agreed.....course this doesn't change the fact that this is a loss for Obama. Like his Gun Control issue. Must have him really Irked Him that after he got his victory lap. That he has been smacked down not only by the American People over guns. But Then told he was doing something that was Unconstitutional. But then again he did Swear an Oath to Uphold the Constitution.
 
President Obama needs the support of the Senate for any of his appointments, by design.

Perhaps he should have considered some people that were more middle-of-the-road, and not in-the-tank extreme liberals. Then he could have had support from the Senate, or at least made a legitimate ruckus about obstructionists. As it stands, he is putting up people diametrically opposed to all facets of conservatism, and lookey there - the conservatives have a problem with it.

Maybe it's time he starts thinking about the country and not just his team.
 
But only during recess. The court ruled that only the Senate, and not the president, can decide when it is in recess.

Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.

This is the first test.

When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.

What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.
 
Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.

This is the first test.

When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.

What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.

A duly elected President has to have his decisions confirmed by the Senate.... by design.
 
Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.

This is the first test.

When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.

What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.


Another indication that the judiciary has overstepped its constitutional power in a separate but equal construct.
 
A duly elected President has to have his decisions confirmed by the Senate.... by design.

No. Not really.

The Senate has a limited 'advise and consent' power over appointments, but the bulk of the executive branch, secretaries, advisers, lawyers, policy writers, are hired like any other public sector job.

But when positions haven't been filled, traditionally the President uses recess appointments to fill mid-level and noncontroversial positions.
 
Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.

This is the first test.

When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.

What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.

Pretty sure John Kerry was easily confirmed in little to no time.

Controversial appointees, necessarily bog down the system, to the benefit of voters.
 
Pretty sure John Kerry was easily confirmed in little to no time.

Controversial appointees, necessarily bog down the system, to the benefit of voters.

bogs benefit no one IMO
 
bogs benefit no one IMO

Yea, let's banish the Congress, and the Judiciary, so the Executive can pass any law it wants instantly and without rebuke.
 
No. Not really.

The Senate has a limited 'advise and consent' power over appointments, but the bulk of the executive branch, secretaries, advisers, lawyers, policy writers, are hired like any other public sector job.

But when positions haven't been filled, traditionally the President uses recess appointments to fill mid-level and noncontroversial positions.

"Advise and consent" means.... well, it means "advise and consent."

ad·vise
/ədˈvīz/
Verb
Offer suggestions about the best course of action to someone: "he advised caution".
Recommend (something): "sleeping pills are not advised".

con·sent

/kənˈsent/
Noun
Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
Verb
Give permission for something to happen: "he consented to a search by a detective".
 
Back
Top Bottom