• 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!

Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

With regards to not in recess "recess" appointments...

  • Ignorant of Con Law and thus assumed it was constitutional?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oblivious to the constitutional implications and acted without thinking of it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,432
Reaction score
35,276
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Honestly, I've been trying to find a way to square this in my head but it's been bothering me more and more lately.

Since before the President was even his parties nominee in 2008 we were hearing on and on about how he was a Constitutional Lawyer, a Con Law Professor, etc. Mentions of this have continued fervently for years now as a defense of various actions and things he's done and as a means of solidifying the constitutional legitimacy of his actions.

But here's what keeps bugging me: the recess appointment issue.

Barack Obama decided to declare, from the seat of the EXECUTIVE, that the Legislative Branch was in "recess" despite the legislative branch clearly and unquestionably proclaiming that it was in session.

A 10th grade civics student could've told you that was NOT a constitutional act. The foundational notion regarding the seperation of powers, and checks and balances, within our constitutional government is something we all learn very early on. The idea that one branch can deem the status of another branch is preposterous on the surface. The constitution establishes that the legislative branch makes it's own rules regarding how it functions internally, and the Executive does not have the power to just over ride those rules because it's an inconvienence to him.

And, just as everyone reasonably expected, the SCOTUS...including the 4 clearly liberal judges (two of which appointed by Obama)...unanimously declared the action unconstitutional.

On the flip side of this, and the reason this has continued to weigh on me, is the oath of office. Specifically this portion:

"...and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Now, the big question here is what "preserve, protect, and defend" means. Specifically, note, that it doesn't state anywhere in there "follow" or "adhere". So the question becomes can one be "preserving" the constitution or "protecting" it if one is actively not following or adhering to it? That, ultimately, comes down to individual interpritation. But it's what's been tripping me up.

I type all this because I keep coming to the same basic issue. It's unquestioned now that Barack Obama took a glaringly obvious, blatant, and clearly unconstitutional step by declaring that Congress was in recess despite their own claims otherwise and appointing individuals to the NLRB. So the question is...

Was the Constitutional Law Professor, whose credentials we've been continually reminded of for 6+ years now, simply so ignorant of constitutional law that he couldn't see and understand that this was an unconstitutional act and just assumed it was?

OR

Was he so arrogant, and has such a twisted and fringe opinion regarding constitutional law, that he honestly believed firmly that this was Constitutional despite it being so blatantly unconstitutional that it was abjectly rejected across all judicial ideological lines?

OR

Was he simply oblivious, giving no thought to the constitutionality of his action what so ever, and simply did what he felt he "needed" to do.

OR

Was he so naive as to think that this action, so blatant that it was unanimously shot down, had at least a reasonable chance of being viewed as constitutional and so felt it was reasonable to challenge it with the belief that it had a legitimate shot of being upheld in the courts.
OR

Did he, given his scholarly credentials, know that his action was likely unconstitutional but figured it was worth rolling the dice and get his people in place for years until the SCOTUS was forced to make a ruling, knowing that it was unlikely a reprimand would come from the congress so the slight chance of succeeding was balanced with little to no actual risk.

OR

Did he fully understand that his actions were almost certainly unconstitutional but decided that fact got in the way of what he wanted, so simply ignored it and plowed ahead?

OR

Something else? Because frankly, after a day of thinking about it and trying my best to be fair...I can't fathom an answer where either he was just painfully lacking in his understanding of constitutional law OR was fully understanding of it and just didn't give a ****. If you can come up with another answer, and I fully expect many of our left leaning individuals to be able to do so, please vote other and throw them my way.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I've been trying to find a way to square this in my head but it's been bothering me more and more lately.

Since before the President was even his parties nominee in 2008 we were hearing on and on about how he was a Constitutional Lawyer, a Con Law Professor, etc. Mentions of this have continued fervently for years now as a defense of various actions and things he's done and as a means of solidifying the constitutional legitimacy of his actions.

But here's what keeps bugging me: the recess appointment issue.

Barack Obama decided to declare, from the seat of the EXECUTIVE, that the Legislative Branch was in "recess" despite the legislative branch clearly and unquestionably proclaiming that it was in session.

A 10th grade civics student could've told you that was NOT a constitutional act. The foundational notion regarding the seperation of powers, and checks and balances, within our constitutional government is something we all learn very early on. The idea that one branch can deem the status of another branch is preposterous on the surface. The constitution establishes that the legislative branch makes it's own rules regarding how it functions internally, and the Executive does not have the power to just over ride those rules because it's an inconvienence to him.

And, just as everyone reasonably expected, the SCOTUS...including the 4 clearly liberal judges (two of which appointed by Obama)...unanimously declared the action unconstitutional.

On the flip side of this, and the reason this has continued to weigh on me, is the oath of office. Specifically this portion:

"...and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Now, the big question here is what "preserve, protect, and defend" means. Specifically, note, that it doesn't state anywhere in there "follow" or "adhere". So the question becomes can one be "preserving" the constitution or "protecting" it if one is actively not following or adhering to it? That, ultimately, comes down to individual interpritation. But it's what's been tripping me up.

I type all this because I keep coming to the same basic issue. It's unquestioned now that Barack Obama took a glaringly obvious, blatant, and clearly unconstitutional step by declaring that Congress was in recess despite their own claims otherwise and appointing individuals to the NLRB. So the question is...

Was the Constitutional Law Professor, whose credentials we've been continually reminded of for 6+ years now, simply so ignorant of constitutional law that he couldn't see and understand that this was an unconstitutional act and just assumed it was?

OR

Was he so arrogant, and has such a twisted and fringe opinion regarding constitutional law, that he honestly believed firmly that this was Constitutional despite it being so blatantly unconstitutional that it was abjectly rejected across all judicial ideological lines?

OR

Was he simply oblivious, giving no thought to the constitutionality of his action what so ever, and simply did what he felt he "needed" to do.

OR

Did he, given his scholarly credentials, know that his action was likely unconstitutional but figured it was worth rolling the dice and force the SCOTUS to make a ruling, knowing that it was unlikely a reprimand would come from the congress so the slight chance of succeeding was balanced with little to no actual risk.

OR

Did he fully understand that his actions were likely unconstitutional but decided that fact got in the way of what he wanted, so simply ignored it and plowed ahead?

OR

Something else? Because frankly, after a day of thinking about it and trying my best to be fair...I can't fathom an answer where either he was just painfully lacking in his understanding of constitutional law OR was fully understanding of it and just didn't give a ****. If you can come up with another answer, and I fully expect many of our left leaning individuals to be able to do so, please vote other and throw them my way.

lots of words saying very little.
He was challenging the trick the Senate was using to say they were in session. He lost. But the challenge was a needed thing and while partly functional and mostly political it was a move that truly was something that was not intentionally unconstitutional.
 
Something else? Because frankly, after a day of thinking about it and trying my best to be fair...I can't fathom an answer where either he was just painfully lacking in his understanding of constitutional law OR was fully understanding of it and just didn't give a ****. If you can come up with another answer, and I fully expect many of our left leaning individuals to be able to do so, please vote other and throw them my way.

I think it may have been a combination of arrogance and frustration. I believe Obama has skirted the line between consitutional and unconsitutional for so long that he thought he could actually do the same with this. Many of the lines he has pushed with the ACA have worked in his favor and I think he thought the same thing here. I do believe he thought it would get ruled in his favor.
 
Honestly, I've been trying to find a way to square this in my head but it's been bothering me more and more lately.

Since before the President was even his parties nominee in 2008 we were hearing on and on about how he was a Constitutional Lawyer, a Con Law Professor, etc. Mentions of this have continued fervently for years now as a defense of various actions and things he's done and as a means of solidifying the constitutional legitimacy of his actions.

But here's what keeps bugging me: the recess appointment issue.

Barack Obama decided to declare, from the seat of the EXECUTIVE, that the Legislative Branch was in "recess" despite the legislative branch clearly and unquestionably proclaiming that it was in session.

A 10th grade civics student could've told you that was NOT a constitutional act. The foundational notion regarding the seperation of powers, and checks and balances, within our constitutional government is something we all learn very early on. The idea that one branch can deem the status of another branch is preposterous on the surface. The constitution establishes that the legislative branch makes it's own rules regarding how it functions internally, and the Executive does not have the power to just over ride those rules because it's an inconvienence to him.

And, just as everyone reasonably expected, the SCOTUS...including the 4 clearly liberal judges (two of which appointed by Obama)...unanimously declared the action unconstitutional.

On the flip side of this, and the reason this has continued to weigh on me, is the oath of office. Specifically this portion:

"...and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Now, the big question here is what "preserve, protect, and defend" means. Specifically, note, that it doesn't state anywhere in there "follow" or "adhere". So the question becomes can one be "preserving" the constitution or "protecting" it if one is actively not following or adhering to it? That, ultimately, comes down to individual interpritation. But it's what's been tripping me up.

I type all this because I keep coming to the same basic issue. It's unquestioned now that Barack Obama took a glaringly obvious, blatant, and clearly unconstitutional step by declaring that Congress was in recess despite their own claims otherwise and appointing individuals to the NLRB. So the question is...

Was the Constitutional Law Professor, whose credentials we've been continually reminded of for 6+ years now, simply so ignorant of constitutional law that he couldn't see and understand that this was an unconstitutional act and just assumed it was?

OR

Was he so arrogant, and has such a twisted and fringe opinion regarding constitutional law, that he honestly believed firmly that this was Constitutional despite it being so blatantly unconstitutional that it was abjectly rejected across all judicial ideological lines?

OR

Was he simply oblivious, giving no thought to the constitutionality of his action what so ever, and simply did what he felt he "needed" to do.

OR

Did he, given his scholarly credentials, know that his action was likely unconstitutional but figured it was worth rolling the dice and force the SCOTUS to make a ruling, knowing that it was unlikely a reprimand would come from the congress so the slight chance of succeeding was balanced with little to no actual risk.

OR

Did he fully understand that his actions were likely unconstitutional but decided that fact got in the way of what he wanted, so simply ignored it and plowed ahead?

OR

Something else? Because frankly, after a day of thinking about it and trying my best to be fair...I can't fathom an answer where either he was just painfully lacking in his understanding of constitutional law OR was fully understanding of it and just didn't give a ****. If you can come up with another answer, and I fully expect many of our left leaning individuals to be able to do so, please vote other and throw them my way.

Trying to get around the fact that Congress wasn't actually doing any business, but somehow weren't in recess. That's been basically admitted to be a political ploy to stop him from making recess appointments. Seriously, read the transcripts of the "sessions" - Gavel in, pray, declare "we aren't doing anything today," gavel out. Personally I can't wait for the next President (probably a Republican) get the same treatment and see you "try to be fair" about it.
 
lots of words saying very little.
He was challenging the trick the Senate was using to say they were in session. He lost. But the challenge was a needed thing and while partly functional and mostly political it was a move that truly was something that was not intentionally unconstitutional.

So your answer was he truly thought his action was, or likely was, constitutional?
 
Trying to get around the fact that Congress wasn't actually doing any business, but somehow weren't in recess.'

Which doesn't answer the question as to whether or not he thought his action was or wasn't likely constitutional, which is largely the basis of this question.

If he, given his credentials, reasonably suspected it was likely unconstitutional but was upset that "congress wasn't actually doing any business" and wanted to get around it then fine...that would be the final option.

If he, given his credentials, somehow DIDN'T suspect it was likely unconstitutional and was upset that "congress wasn't actually doing any business" and wanted to get around it then fine...that would be one of the first options.

I don't deny at all that he was upset with what congress was doing and thus was attempting to get around that fact in some fashion. The question is more whether or not he had a good idea that his means of getting around it was constitutional or not.
 
I think it may have been a combination of arrogance and frustration. I believe Obama has skirted the line between consitutional and unconsitutional for so long that he thought he could actually do the same with this. Many of the lines he has pushed with the ACA have worked in his favor and I think he thought the same thing here. I do believe he thought it would get ruled in his favor.

Basically this, I'm in the second to last option category.

I can't fathom how a man with his constitutional law credentials could POSSIBLY think this was a constitutional act, or even likely to be deemd as such, unless their views on constitutional law is on the "lunatic fringe" scale of things. I figured, AT BEST, he thought he may get a couple of Justices possibly going his way which would at least help cover up much of the political fall out (which lets be serious, there wasn't likely to be much as this isn't the thing that fires up social media of the media). But he knew he wasn't going to have any legitimate reprucussions from this issue, so what was the harm of gambling a bit. As you said, he's toed the line a number of times with success and the other times his executive branch has been thwarted 9-0 has gotten little coverage or reaction, so why NOT take the gamble. He was frustrated and annoyed and wanted to send a message that he had the big stick at the time, so despite likely realizing his argument had barely more than a snowballs chance in hell he tried it anyways.
 
I don't deny at all that he was upset with what congress was doing and thus was attempting to get around that fact in some fashion. The question is more whether or not he had a good idea that his means of getting around it was constitutional or not.
I suspect there comes a point when one party does everything they can to ruin you and in the process hold up what you think are necessary measures to make this country better where you decide things have to be done and if you're told "no" later, then so be it. So I suspect the answer you are looking for is this:

Did he, given his scholarly credentials, know that his action was likely unconstitutional but figured it was worth rolling the dice and get his people in place for years until the SCOTUS was forced to make a ruling, knowing that it was unlikely a reprimand would come from the congress so the slight chance of succeeding was balanced with little to no actual risk.

And, let's face it...isn't that how our country operates today, in most areas?
 
Personally, I believe Obama benefits from the disaster that was the Bill Clinton impeachment and aftermath. Had Billy Boy not been "stogie-ing" and sperming a White House intern, it's likely that Obama would never have felt he could arrogantly get away with his actions because it's also likely that Obama would have suffered through impeachment proceedings for any number of his unconstitutional actions. Republicans in a highly partisan House back in the 90s pretty much put impeachment on the back shelf for at least one generation if not more. As a result, what possible risk could there be for any personally popular President to ignore the constitution.
 
So I suspect the answer you are looking for is this:

Thanks for the answer. That, generally, is my guess on it as well. I have trouble thinking someone that schooled on the constitution could even concievably find a way to think this was in any way, shape, or form likely to be upheld by even one justice let alone by a majority. Whlie I don't buy the "centrist" ideological lean of the president some suggest, I don't think he is SO on the fringe as it relates to constitutional law that he thought something was clearly constitutional when not even one of the four liberal leaning justices on the court would likely agree with it.

And, let's face it...isn't that how our country operates today, in most areas?

Sadly, yes. I'd say it's how our country has operated for some time. Sadly, the past six years hasn't been much of a Change from politics as usual as it relates to this.
 
Sadly, yes. I'd say it's how our country has operated for some time. Sadly, the past six years hasn't been much of a Change from politics as usual as it relates to this.
I honestly believe Obama thought he could change the system. I honestly believe that most Presidents enter the White House thinking they can change the system for the better. But there is far too much money involved for things to change the way they need to and I think all Presidents get fed up with it. And it's only going to get worse.

At the end of the day, I truly believe most people who enter the White House as President do so for the right reasons. I don't think any of them are bad or evil people, just people who honestly think they can better the country they love. But when you are, time and again, made out to be evil, the anti-christ, a king, or whatever other labels are heaped upon the President by the opposing party, you tend to get tired of trying to do it the way it should be done, and instead do it how you think it can get done.

There's only so much BS a person can be reasonably expected to put up with.
 
lots of words saying very little.
He was challenging the trick the Senate was using to say they were in session. He lost. But the challenge was a needed thing and while partly functional and mostly political it was a move that truly was something that was not intentionally unconstitutional.

I think you're right that it was not intentionally unconstitutional and a ruling from the SCOTUS was probably needed. But I think as a Constitutional Lawyer he should have realized how the ruling would come down based only on who says the senate is in session, the senate or the President. Reid's nuclear option made it all moot anyway. I have a whole lot more problem with Reid and his nuclear option than with the president recess appointments as there was a very slim chance he just might prevail. With Reid's nuclear option the advise and consent of presidential appointments as required by the senate in the constitution has just become a paperwork drill if the senate is controlled by the same party as the president.
 
So your answer was he truly thought his action was, or likely was, constitutional?

I think he was challenging the Constitutionality of the Senate saying they were in session using a trick. For many lawyers that is a question mark. What defines being in session was what was adjudicated. So yeah, he probably wasn't sure so he did what he was suppose to do. Ask the Supreme Court by acting.
 
I honestly believe Obama thought he could change the system.

He might have. I don't really think he was quite that naive, as I rate his intelligence far more than it seems many of my fellow conservatives do. I think he figured he could change policy...but I don't think he honestly thought he was going to transform the way politicals in washington worked. I think much of the "change" message was just that, message. This view was cemented for me when he immedietely used loopholes to justify bringing in lobbyists to his administration within the first weeks....both going back on his campaign messages about using loopholes to justify action AND regarding lobbyists within his administration. That's when it became crystal clear to me that the majority of the "change from politics as usual" campaign rhetoric was rhetoric.

That's not necessarily "good" or "bad". I think that's common with MOST presidential candidates. They message out and proclaim far more than they ever expect to actually uphold; it just bothers me more with Obama because, in part, that was a foundational part of his message which is a bit unlike most recent campaigns. That said, I do agree that most go in thinking that they're going to be able to try to follow through, to some degree, on their rhetoric even if they fully know they're not going to go to the full extent.

At the end of the day, I truly believe most people who enter the White House as President do so for the right reasons. I don't think any of them are bad or evil people, just people who honestly think they can better the country they love.

Agree completely here. I still don't think Obama is "evil" or some kind of "enemy". I laugh at the ridiculous "Stealth jihad" or "intentionally trying to cripple the country" non-sense. I don't think he, nor Bush, are evil or do what they do because they want the United States to be worse. I think they do what they honestly feel is right; I just think at times it's arguably as to what they think is "right" or "good" for the country actually IS or actually IS constitutional (as both sides have questioned both Presidents actions on those matters).

But when you are, time and again, made out to be evil, the anti-christ, a king, or whatever other labels are heaped upon the President by the opposing party, you tend to get tired of trying to do it the way it should be done, and instead do it how you think it can get done.

Yep, I agree. Doens't make it any less troubling in my mind when it happens.

Was talking to someone over PM and it ticked why this bothers me such...

In 2008 part of the counter argument for Obama's lack of experience was his credential as a Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. It was supposed to help buoy his dearth of experience and provide a response to his critics that he'd be out of his depth on matters of the executive. Coming off the Bush years, when liberals (and many libertarians) continually complained of Bush's actions as unconstitutional, someone with a firm understanding of the Constitution was pushed as a bonus for Barack Obama's appeal.

So where with a normal politician, be it Bush or Clinton or Hillary if she won or whoever else, I expect them to have a passing knowledge of Constitutional law and to mildly have it in mind...with Obama I expected him to have a sound knowledge and something that was readily in mind with his actions. While I didn't expect to agree with him always on his interpritation, I at least expected it to be realitvely understandable.

I can buy someone like a Bush or Hillary just not thinking about the constitutionality of this type of action, or simply having a wrong opinion on what its constitutionality is. I just can't square that in my head with a guy whose credentials, in part, was built on his time as a Constitutional Law Professor. It's kind of like how liberals always enjoy to toss out "hypocrite" when a Republican who campaigns on "family values" does something immoral or unethical. Well, when a guy who runs on "changing politics as usual" and on his experienc as a "constitutional law professor" it becomes a bigger issue when he does politics as usual and acts in a way that flies in the face of the constitution even when veiwed from a judicially liberal position.

Which keeps me coming back to just willfully going "Meh" to the likely constitutional issue because he was frustrated, angry, impatient, whatever. And for some reason that doesn't sit well with me. I'm not one on the "impeach obama bandwagon" and unlikely to be (in large part because I just don't think it's politically viable) so I'm not suggesting that happen...but it doesn't sit well with me none the less. Hell, the FACT that I don't think action will or should really be taken against him is probalby part of WHY it doesn't sit well with me.

I agere with you in that there's only so much BS a person can reasonably be expected to put up with...but I think that threshold is pretty high when it comes to the President and constitutional issues. And while I understand using the powers inherent within the constitutions checks and balances in a very obnoxious, but constitutional way, can be frustrating...it doesn't justify responding in a clearly unconstitutional fashion. Using loopholes within a system is frustrating....blowing your own hole through a system and going through it is inexecusable.

Sorry, now I'm just kind of musing on the issue.
 
I think you're right that it was not intentionally unconstitutional and a ruling from the SCOTUS was probably needed. But I think as a Constitutional Lawyer he should have realized how the ruling would come down based only on who says the senate is in session, the senate or the President. Reid's nuclear option made it all moot anyway. I have a whole lot more problem with Reid and his nuclear option than with the president recess appointments as there was a very slim chance he just might prevail. With Reid's nuclear option the advise and consent of presidential appointments as required by the senate in the constitution has just become a paperwork drill if the senate is controlled by the same party as the president.

Reid Nuclear option is narrow and set for judicial appointments, this case was NLRB. Apples and oranges. IN session means something, in law it was not clear if not working but opening and closing truly meant in session according to the Constitution that as you know means different things at different times despite what some people say.
 
He might have. I don't really think he was quite that naive, as I rate his intelligence far more than it seems many of my fellow conservatives do. I think he figured he could change policy...but I don't think he honestly thought he was going to transform the way politicals in washington worked. I think much of the "change" message was just that, message.
I agree the message was trumped up a bit, but I really do think he felt he could change how politics worked. I have seen him talk on more than one occasion where I get the genuine impression he's incredibly frustrated by politics, to the point where he legitimately laments the fact things are the way they are. I suspect he truly is disappointed he couldn't change the beast.

Agree completely here. I still don't think Obama is "evil" or some kind of "enemy". I laugh at the ridiculous "Stealth jihad" or "intentionally trying to cripple the country" non-sense. I don't think he, nor Bush, are evil or do what they do because they want the United States to be worse. I think they do what they honestly feel is right; I just think at times it's arguably as to what they think is "right" or "good" for the country actually IS or actually IS constitutional (as both sides have questioned both Presidents actions on those matters).
The fact is "what's constitutional" is not set in stone. I don't need to remind you of the many times "what's constitutional" has changed in our country's history. Furthermore, unlike others, I think it's quite obvious it's arguable as to what the best path forward is...if we KNEW the correct path, it would always be taken. But there really is no "correct" path, because our country is always changing.

Yep, I agree. Doens't make it any less troubling in my mind when it happens.
I think what troubles me more than anything is how power is being abused in Congress. Yes, Obama's actions were unanimously declared unconstitutional, but he only took those actions because Congress has essentially abused the trust placed in them. We HAVE to have Presidential appointments to executive positions. This is indisputable, at least it is to anyone who is realistic about the times we live in. But when one party controls enough of Congress to prohibit a substantial number of presidential appointments, for no better reason because they are the opposition party, then what they are saying is they place themselves over the good of the country.

At the end of the day, the President can only do what's allowed within the law...but Congress basically IS the law. Congress has the power to make things happen, the President simply has to wait for them to happen. And when Congress refuses to do their job (and strangely enough, be proud of it), then that is far more troubling in my mind than when a President is trying to get done what needs to get done.

I understand why it's worrisome for one man to try and skirt the very authority which is supposed to keep him in check. But, at the end of the day, Obama only did what he did because Congress wouldn't do what they should.

I can buy someone like a Bush or Hillary just not thinking about the constitutionality of this type of action, or simply having a wrong opinion on what its constitutionality is. I just can't square that in my head with a guy whose credentials, in part, was built on his time as a Constitutional Law Professor.
But I don't see this as "Obama unilaterally deciding to violate the Constitution". I see this as a situation where he is in constant contact with various lawyers to figure out how what he wants done can legally be done. It's akin to the old phrase "A man who has himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client". I'd be very surprised if any President simply decided to take action, without first consulting advisers.

I agere with you in that there's only so much BS a person can reasonably be expected to put up with...but I think that threshold is pretty high when it comes to the President and constitutional issues.
And I think every President puts up with more BS than they should. I think George W. Bush got off a little light in his first term because of 9/11 and how politically popular he was, but otherwise, I think Presidents are always having to put up with a ridiculous amount of nonsense.

And that's why I defend Obama so much. A lot of people want to believe it's because I'm a Democrat/liberal, but it's not. It's because I have seen firsthand how much crap the person at the top has to deal with. I know decisions are made by the top executive with information the regular public doesn't have. And that's only based on knowing a school superintendent...I can't even begin to imagine how much crap and how much private information a President has to deal with.

And while I understand using the powers inherent within the constitutions checks and balances in a very obnoxious, but constitutional way, can be frustrating...it doesn't justify responding in a clearly unconstitutional fashion. Using loopholes within a system is frustrating....blowing your own hole through a system and going through it is inexecusable.
Is it though? Refer back to the age old question...is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family inexcusable?

Obviously, appointing people is not the same as a life threatening situation, but the point is similar...at what point is blowing your own hole through the system which prohibits you from advancing necessary?

Sorry, now I'm just kind of musing on the issue.
Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate high quality discussion and wish it happened more often.
 
Where is the option for no one being able to consistently pick how SCOTUS will rule? If doing something that is overturned by the courts is somehow ignorant and uncaring of the constitution, then every president fits that.

This thread, outside of word count, is really beneath you. You are better than this kind of ****.
 
Reid Nuclear option is narrow and set for judicial appointments, this case was NLRB. Apples and oranges. IN session means something, in law it was not clear if not working but opening and closing truly meant in session according to the Constitution that as you know means different things at different times despite what some people say.

What you do not realize is once a precedent has been set it will be used again and again. On the pro forma session it was Reid who devised it and used it first to prevent Bush from making recess appointments,

Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush | TheHill

But regardless, I view things like this as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is good enough for the democrats to use, it is good enough for the republicans and vice versa.

On Reid's Nuclear Option it applied to all presidential appointees excluding the SCOTUS and legislation. But Reid opened left the door wide open to include SCOTUS and legislation by invoking it. Precedence has been set and Reid did it. I have no doubt if the Republicans gain the presidency and the senate at sometime in the future, they won't hesitate to following the precedence set by senator Reid and you can thank Senator Reid for anything that follows.

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules

using the nuclear option the 3 member of the NLRB has already been reappointed along with Susan Rice as NSC advisor.
 
Which doesn't answer the question as to whether or not he thought his action was or wasn't likely constitutional, which is largely the basis of this question.

If he, given his credentials, reasonably suspected it was likely unconstitutional but was upset that "congress wasn't actually doing any business" and wanted to get around it then fine...that would be the final option.

If he, given his credentials, somehow DIDN'T suspect it was likely unconstitutional and was upset that "congress wasn't actually doing any business" and wanted to get around it then fine...that would be one of the first options.

I don't deny at all that he was upset with what congress was doing and thus was attempting to get around that fact in some fashion. The question is more whether or not he had a good idea that his means of getting around it was constitutional or not.

The Constitution allows for the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session. It all comes down to a legitimate question of what constitutes "in session." He lost, but the question needed to be answered. That's what he was doing. State his case and let the Supreme Court decide what a recess was.
 
What you do not realize is once a precedent has been set it will be used again and again. On the pro forma session it was Reid who devised it and used it first to prevent Bush from making recess appointments,

Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush | TheHill

But regardless, I view things like this as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is good enough for the democrats to use, it is good enough for the republicans and vice versa.

On Reid's Nuclear Option it applied to all presidential appointees excluding the SCOTUS and legislation. But Reid opened left the door wide open to include SCOTUS and legislation by invoking it. Precedence has been set and Reid did it. I have no doubt if the Republicans gain the presidency and the senate at sometime in the future, they won't hesitate to following the precedence set by senator Reid and you can thank Senator Reid for anything that follows.

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules

using the nuclear option the 3 member of the NLRB has already been reappointed along with Susan Rice as NSC advisor.

They will keep the nuclear option in place. Now that the "suing the President" has been unsheathed, bet on the Democrats using that sometime as well.
 
Where is the option for no one being able to consistently pick how SCOTUS will rule?

Come on Redress. I wasn't asking a question about something that was a 5/4 ruling, or even a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling.

This was a UNANIMOUS ruling against the Presidents action. This was the likes of Alito and Ginsburg agreeing on a similar verdict. Of Thomas and Sotomayer both issuing the same vote. Of Scalia and Kagan both saying "Nope".

In most cases I agree, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest you can consistently guess how the SCOTUS would rule. But this one was blatantly obvious, and that fact became even more crystal clear when they UNANIMOUSLY....judicially liberal and conservative...both said "no go".

This is basic civics. The Senate sets the rules for how the senate acts internally and only they have the power to declare themselves on recess. Allowing the President to decide when Congress is in recess by fiat is clearly and obvious a violation of the checks and balances built into our system. This is so blatantly obvious that every single SCOTUS Justice ruled against that.

To HONESTLY believe this action was constitutional, or stood even a REASONABLE chance of being upheld, one would either need to be utterly ignorant of constitutional law, so amazingly on the lunatic fringe of constitutional law that even Kagan and Sotomayer view your opinion as too liberal, or simply in denial.

This is not simply doing something overturned by the course. This is doing something blatantly and obviously unconstitutional and having it called as such by EVERY SINGLE JUSTICE on the court. And, specifically, this is the President himself not doing this...not simply a portion of th executive branch which is often used as a means of distinction when the other 9-0 cases against this current administration (or past administrations) are pointed out.

By the way, there is an option for that. The fourth one. And if you want to quibble on the notion of naivity being involved, I would love to see you put forth a compelling argument that ANYONE...specifically a constitutional scholar...should've had ANY hope what so ever that this action would've garnered 5 votes in support of it.
 
They will keep the nuclear option in place. Now that the "suing the President" has been unsheathed, bet on the Democrats using that sometime as well.

Sure they will. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In today's hyper-partisan age each side is looking for fresh ammo or ways to stick it to the other. The sad thing is a bit of give and take, a little compromise could have avoided all of this.
 
I'm just spitballing, but perhaps he wanted this to come to a ruling so the next POTUS didn't try this same thing?
 
I suspect he truly is disappointed he couldn't change the beast.

With that I agree, I just think we part ways on how sincere he was in terms of the amount, and things, he wanted to change.

The fact is "what's constitutional" is not set in stone. I don't need to remind you of the many times "what's constitutional" has changed in our country's history.

Absolutely. But this wasn't a situation where there was a legitimate split, or even mild split, on the part of the court. This wasn't a situation where there's significant variation in terms of the scholarly community in regards to if the action was reasonable or not. This was a pretty blatant and clear cut situation regardless of ones judicial ideology, as evidenced by the 9-0 ruling against the the President. On the court you have arguably everything from staunchly to moderatetly liberal and conservative in terms of judicial ideology...and yet not a single one found the presiden'ts argument compelling. I'm sorry, but to me that doens't indicate a simple feeling that "what's constitutional" isn't set in stone, but rather a sign of either full recognition that his (and/or his advisors) views were not likely constitutional, a sign of poor research and forethought in not realizing it's unlikely to be viewed as such, or simply a fringe view of what the constitutional entails outside of even views of those on the court that are on his side in terms of judicial ideology.

I think what troubles me more than anything is how power is being abused in Congress.

I don't think it's something can be answered in some kind of across the board manner, because different things trouble me in different ways to different degrees. As it comes to the recess appointments; a branch of government utilizing a loophole, but doing so legitimately, bothers me less than a branch just utterly disregarding the constitution. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of the use of the loophole, but the bad actions of congress don't excuse or make the worse actions by the executive less problematic.

At the end of the day, the President can only do what's allowed within the law...but Congress basically IS the law.

Yes, that's the check and balance within our system. I know it can be frustrating to the executive, but that frustration doesn't give a free pass to encroach upon those checks and balances. Is congress going over board with thier check currently? Arguably yes. But the system is set up to allow for that; meaning the executive needs to find a way WITHIN THE SYSTEM to deal with the frustration it causes.

I understand why it's worrisome for one man to try and skirt the very authority which is supposed to keep him in check. But, at the end of the day, Obama only did what he did because Congress wouldn't do what they should.

I don't mind a legitimate skirt. Take for instance some of his executive actions. I have issues with some of them and feel that some violate the standards that have been set out in terms of determining if executive actions are constitutional or not. However, I recognize there's a legitimate question regarding the constitutionality of those things and that the scholarly and judicial community is likely split on those things...so I do not blame Obama for attepmting some of them, nor do I have a problem with Republicans threatening now to challenge some of them. It's reasonable to believe that the President honestly feels there is a constitutional argument to be made that is compelling that what he's doing is okay, and the fact it is such a significant question within the legal community backs that up.

This was not such a case. This wasn't toeing the line or barely skirting the edges, this was doing a 40 yard dash over the line naked and saying "I'm going to keep running over on this side until you stop me".


is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family inexcusable?

Its understandable...it's still inexecusable as it relates to the law. And that's taking into account an arguably life saving action, not one that's being undertaken because you're frustrated.
 
I'm just spitballing, but perhaps he wanted this to come to a ruling so the next POTUS didn't try this same thing?

It's a possability, but it would still then leave me troubled with a President taking an unconstitutional action, and allowing said unconstitutional action to impact peoples lives for a time period (and then cause tax payer funds to rectify the issue as I am under the understanding that all those issues judged by those appointed individuals now must be relooked at), simply to set a precedence and make a point to handicapped a future president from something that they may not have even tried.
 
Back
Top Bottom