It's Official: Obama violated the Constitution

[Stephanie]

To the o/p....

And? Your point?

I suspect the Supreme Court will weigh in next.

And if he was wrong, that. 'S why there's judicial review.

It's not like people died because he lied to start a war or anything. Now THAT would be impeachable.

well, if someone had lied to start a war I'm sure the Democrats would of sought impeachment, but how funny they didn't..

It figures you don't care Obama that supposed "constitutional scholar" stepped on the constitution

we'd be hearing holy hell if it had been a Republican

 

[L.K.Eder]

Looks as if the Mods have missed the fact that three threads on this same issue have already been posted by RW trolls. So, repeating my final post on this thread should not be seen as spamming.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

It seems the three conservative judges who made the aforementioned ruling disregarded 150 years of precedent and even acknowledged so in their ruling.

how is using a tactic to technically keep the senate from being in recess respecting the constitution?

 

[jillian]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. 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."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

This part?

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.

Did you read the part where those vacancies had been sitting empty for two years? Was the Senate in recess that long? Is that why there wasn't a budget?

I wonder what you think the proper remedy is for when the senate fails to meet its obligation to approve the presidents appointees in order to obstruct the executive branch?

 

[Too Tall]

1. "Do you acknowledge that conservatives want to destroy unions?"

No.

Because I'm conservative, I value the freedom of assembly guarantee of the first amendment.

2. "What part of "middle class income decreases as unions are weakened"
Not true.
Obama policies are responsible for any such weakening. Proof? Sure....look at the difference in the same time frame under Reagan's policies.


3. Now, here's the part where we prove that you are an idiot:
"Did you forget that unions were created for a reason?"
I provided a link showing that non-union members have no desire to join unions.
You didn't respond to same.

QED....Idiot.

March 2011
"Would you rather be in a union at your job, or not in a union?"

In a union: 43%
Not in a union: 48%
No preference: 6%
Unsure: 3%

Link: Work

3. I'll start with that one because it's the stupidest. There's my response to your poll. You can find a poll to support anything. And I wouldn't trust an internet poll that that comes from a favorite pollster of the Drudge crowd.

1. Republicans, or conservatives, are very vocal about their opposition to unions and collective bargaining. How do you reconcile your answer of "no" to wanting to destroy labor unions with the views of the ideology you support?

2. As I recall Reagan did a whole lot more for the wealthy than for the middle or lower class. Where are you getting your info from? As for Obama we'll see what his legacy is. He whupped the repugs a few months ago so he must be doing something right.

I have belonged to a private sector union and a public sector union in the past and don't want to destroy one of them. I would like to see public sector unions abolished. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Too Tall]

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

This part?

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.

Did you read the part where those vacancies had been sitting empty for two years? Was the Senate in recess that long? Is that why there wasn't a budget?

I wonder what you think the proper remedy is for when the senate fails to meet its obligation to approve the presidents appointees in order to obstruct the executive branch?

Two choices. Wait for the Senate to go on recess, not a pro forma recess, or appoint someone that the Senate will approve.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

This part?

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.

Did you read the part where those vacancies had been sitting empty for two years? Was the Senate in recess that long? Is that why there wasn't a budget?

I wonder what you think the proper remedy is for when the senate fails to meet its obligation to approve the presidents appointees in order to obstruct the executive branch?

I wonder why you think there needs to be a remedy? Is the fact that Obama waited almost two years to even nominate anyone to the NRLB the fault of the Senate?

 

[jillian]

This part?

Did you read the part where those vacancies had been sitting empty for two years? Was the Senate in recess that long? Is that why there wasn't a budget?

I wonder what you think the proper remedy is for when the senate fails to meet its obligation to approve the presidents appointees in order to obstruct the executive branch?

I wonder why you think there needs to be a remedy? Is the fact that Obama waited almost two years to even nominate anyone to the NRLB the fault of the Senate?

Because government needs to operate... No matter how much you hate government unless its telling women what to do with their bodies

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder what you think the proper remedy is for when the senate fails to meet its obligation to approve the presidents appointees in order to obstruct the executive branch?

I wonder why you think there needs to be a remedy? Is the fact that Obama waited almost two years to even nominate anyone to the NRLB the fault of the Senate?

Because government needs to operate... No matter how much you hate government unless its telling women what to do with their bodies

Government does not need to operate, we are better off without it.

By the way, if you actually believe that, why aren't you complaining about Obama not nominating anyone to the NRLB for two years?

 

[Too Tall]

Looks as if the Mods have missed the fact that three threads on this same issue have already been posted by RW trolls. So, repeating my final post on this thread should not be seen as spamming.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

It seems the three conservative judges who made the aforementioned ruling disregarded 150 years of precedent and even acknowledged so in their ruling.

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

I don't see the words "pro forma" recess in that statement. That is what was ruled on and the wannabee dictator lost.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks as if the Mods have missed the fact that three threads on this same issue have already been posted by RW trolls. So, repeating my final post on this thread should not be seen as spamming.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

It seems the three conservative judges who made the aforementioned ruling disregarded 150 years of precedent and even acknowledged so in their ruling.

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

I don't see the words "pro forma" recess in that statement. That is what was ruled on and the wannabee dictator lost.

Games people play will be vetted by the Supreme Court (5-4 most likely), and for a time that will be what the COTUS means. Those who suggest it is written in Clay Tablets by an omnipotent force are the few, the partisan and the ridiculous. Nowhere in the phrase quoted above is "Recess of the Senate" defined, nor the words "pro forma" included.

 

[Si modo]

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

1. Rant?
I was merely celebrating the foot of justice on the tyrant's throat.


2. Being as inarticulate as you usually are, you've simply offered the constitutional requirements of recess appointments.

Are you actually positing that the court decision didn't reference same?

Oh....I forgot: your raison d'etre is the empty desire to be relevant.

Once again, unfulfilled.


Based on your ability, you should stick to reading the obituary column and crossing out the names from the phone book.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

Yup. That's what it says. Only, the Senate wasn't in recess, yet Obama still did it, being the "constitutional scholar" that he is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. Rant?
I was merely celebrating the foot of justice on the tyrant's throat.


2. Being as inarticulate as you usually are, you've simply offered the constitutional requirements of recess appointments.

Are you actually positing that the court decision didn't reference same?

Oh....I forgot: your raison d'etre is the empty desire to be relevant.

Once again, unfulfilled.


Based on your ability, you should stick to reading the obituary column and crossing out the names from the phone book.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

Yup. That's what it says. Only, the Senate wasn't in recess, yet Obama still did it, being the "constitutional scholar" that he is.

So you say. What does it take to be in session vis a vis recess? If there is no quorum, is the Senate in session, in recess or in the zone of twilight?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ha! Like you had planned the said "trap" before you wrote your little as usual partisan OP! I'm pretty sure that's a load of bullshit and you seem think we all fell off the turnip truck with you!

I sure did.


When I post, I anticipate the response.


I never lie.
Ever.


And....with you as representative of the calibre of the opposition.....why would I have to?

^^^^^
Talk about lame!

I'm certain you must be referring to your response.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

Yup. That's what it says. Only, the Senate wasn't in recess, yet Obama still did it, being the "constitutional scholar" that he is.

So you say. What does it take to be in session vis a vis recess? If there is no quorum, is the Senate in session, in recess or in the zone of twilight?

Did you read the ruling? Are you aware that Obama actually signed a bill that passed during the time you are now arguing the Senate was in recess? Does being so intellectually dishonest bother you?

 

[saveliberty]

The ruling correctly asserts that Congress is only out of session inbetween Congresses. Also that the vacancy MUST occur during that recess and not simply that the President wishes to fill it at such time. Words have meanings and the Appeals Court is using the proper definitions. A shame really, Obama pushed his agenda so hard a court challenge was made which will effect all future Presidents.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yup. That's what it says. Only, the Senate wasn't in recess, yet Obama still did it, being the "constitutional scholar" that he is.

So you say. What does it take to be in session vis a vis recess? If there is no quorum, is the Senate in session, in recess or in the zone of twilight?

Did you read the ruling? Are you aware that Obama actually signed a bill that passed during the time you are now arguing the Senate was in recess? Does being so intellectually dishonest bother you?

I'm asking how Recess is defined. Don't build a staw man when you have no matches and the staw is wet.

It is my undersanding the Senate is playing a game, having few members present but not conducting a spit of business. Is that true, or am I mistaken?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

1. Rant?
I was merely celebrating the foot of justice on the tyrant's throat.


2. Being as inarticulate as you usually are, you've simply offered the constitutional requirements of recess appointments.

Are you actually positing that the court decision didn't reference same?

Oh....I forgot: your raison d'etre is the empty desire to be relevant.

Once again, unfulfilled.


Based on your ability, you should stick to reading the obituary column and crossing out the names from the phone book.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

Did you just write 'To Wit.'???

If only you had the gift of irony.
This post is the only time the word 'wit' and your name were ever....ever...in conjunction!!





Now, for your lesson in understanding the Constitution.

The: Used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique

A: Used with units of measurement to mean one such unit: "a hundred"; "a quarter of an hour"; "a recess."




The Constitution refers to THE Recess of the Senate

Not "a recess," which might be a lunch break.

Get it, dunce???

The formal recess declared by the Senate!!

Seems you and the moron you voted for don't know the difference between "The"n and "A."
Was that sound you slapping your forehead and exclaiming 'Ohhhhhh....'! ?


No thanks necessary....the lesson was free. A conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal.


Now...answer my question: did you really believe he was a constitutional scholar?
Really?


And, hey, the next time the kids throw their ball in your yard, come on, give it back to them.

 

[saveliberty]

Here you go Wry:

Republicans argued that Obama undercut the Senate's power to confirm nominees because although most of its members were out of town, the Senate had not formally adjourned.

In a surprisingly broad ruling, the three-judge panel rejected not only the NLRB appointments but any made while the Senate is in session but on a break. That could limit recess appointments to only a few weeks a year.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also ruled that recess appointments could only be used for positions that become vacant while the Senate is in recess.

Court rules Obama's appointments unconstitutional | Reuters

As to your assertion there was game play Wry. Democrats are the majority, how could a game be played?

 

[PoliticalChic]

To the o/p....

And? Your point?

I suspect the Supreme Court will weigh in next.

And if he was wrong, that. 'S why there's judicial review.

It's not like people died because he lied to start a war or anything. Now THAT would be impeachable.

It makes my point: it is only the language of the Constitution that ever matters.
No penumbras.


"It's not like people died because he lied to start a war or anything."
Double dog dare you to show such a lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you say. What does it take to be in session vis a vis recess? If there is no quorum, is the Senate in session, in recess or in the zone of twilight?

Did you read the ruling? Are you aware that Obama actually signed a bill that passed during the time you are now arguing the Senate was in recess? Does being so intellectually dishonest bother you?

I'm asking how Recess is defined. Don't build a staw man when you have no matches and the staw is wet.

It is my undersanding the Senate is playing a game, having few members present but not conducting a spit of business. Is that true, or am I mistaken?

See: Recess appointment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Constitution, Recess is defined as the period between two sessions of the Senate. Unless you can point to something about games, or something that requires them to actually take a recess, in the Constitution I don't think you have a point

Can you?

While you are at it, can you explain why Obama not nominating anyone for the posts is not playing games? Or do you only complain about games when they get in the way of your imaginative beliefs.