National Groups File Challenge to Obama’s Unconstitutional Stacking of NLRB

If it was unconstitutional then they have an obligation to do something about it, don't you think?

Well lets see the quote from the Constitution and defines what length of time is considered a recess in the Senate!

You are incorrect. The appointments made by the President were not unconstitutional. You were correct in that the Senate will do nothing about it either.

The answer to your first question is not just "no," but OBVIOUSLY "no." They have no such "obligation." It would be the RIGHT thing to do, perhaps, but that wouldn't impose any obligation on them.

Your lack of familiarity with the CONSTITUTIONAL is (thankfully) not binding on anybody. Try Art. I "Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days".

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

* * * *

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.
Art. I, §5, clause 4.

And, since the Senate was NOT in recess, YOU are wrong. The President's purported appointments were invalid.





Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?

You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.
 
The answer to your first question is not just "no," but OBVIOUSLY "no." They have no such "obligation." It would be the RIGHT thing to do, perhaps, but that wouldn't impose any obligation on them.

Your lack of familiarity with the CONSTITUTIONAL is (thankfully) not binding on anybody. Try Art. I "Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days".

Art. I, §5, clause 4.

And, since the Senate was NOT in recess, YOU are wrong. The President's purported appointments were invalid.





Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?

You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.

Actually they have adjourned until tomorrow at noon. President Obama could appoint somebody right now too. Totally within his Constutitonal authority.

They will not be back in session until the 23rd.

Corrrection tomorrow at 10:30........
 
Last edited:
Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?

You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.

Actually they have adjourned until tomorrow at noon. President Obama could appoint somebody right now too. Totally within his Constutitonal authority.

They will not be back in session until the 23rd.

Corrrection tomorrow at 10:30........

Actually, no. When they ARE in recess or adjournment, the Presidential authority kicks in.

But when they are still in SESSION, as they were at the time of the disputed "recess [sic] appointments" which we have been discussing, then they are NOT adjourned nor are they in recess.

Your effort to spin and quibble remain illuminating. You just don't care to admit the inescapable facts.
 
The answer to your first question is not just "no," but OBVIOUSLY "no." They have no such "obligation." It would be the RIGHT thing to do, perhaps, but that wouldn't impose any obligation on them.

Your lack of familiarity with the CONSTITUTIONAL is (thankfully) not binding on anybody. Try Art. I "Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days".

Art. I, §5, clause 4.

And, since the Senate was NOT in recess, YOU are wrong. The President's purported appointments were invalid.





Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?

You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.

Who's quibbling? No matter how many times you say it, the Senate is not currently in session. They held a 30 second session on the 13th and then adjoured till the 17th.

Congressional Record - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

Senate


Chamber Action

The Senate met at 12:00:03 p.m. in pro forma session, and adjourned at 12:00:33 p.m. until 10:15 a.m., on Tuesday, January 17, 2012.
 
The answer to your first question is not just "no," but OBVIOUSLY "no." They have no such "obligation." It would be the RIGHT thing to do, perhaps, but that wouldn't impose any obligation on them.

Your lack of familiarity with the CONSTITUTIONAL is (thankfully) not binding on anybody. Try Art. I "Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days".

Art. I, §5, clause 4.

And, since the Senate was NOT in recess, YOU are wrong. The President's purported appointments were invalid.


Great, then the Senate can make that argument.



Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?

You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.




When you're ready to tell us all the specific injury to a legally protected interest that the plaintiffs suffered, let us know.
 
Blind Boo..

We know....Obama is the perfect president who has never deviated form the norm of what is expected from a President and he will never seek loopholes to push his agenda.

Yes...we get it.

I suggest you do a little research into what he did, when he did it, and how he did it.

There is a reason the court accepted the filing......

The question is not was the law broken...the question is "will he produce a loophole that the court is not aware of"

In the meantime....enjoy your perfectly ethical ideal Preisent who has done nothing but great things for our country.
 
Blind Boo..

We know....Obama is the perfect president who has never deviated form the norm of what is expected from a President and he will never seek loopholes to push his agenda.

Deviate from the norm? Nothing could be further from the truth.


Obama was the first President to

1) take vacations
2) appoint people that the media refers to as "czars"
3) have an expensive security detail


I could go on about his firsts....
 
Blind Boo..

We know....Obama is the perfect president who has never deviated form the norm of what is expected from a President and he will never seek loopholes to push his agenda.

Yes...we get it.

I suggest you do a little research into what he did, when he did it, and how he did it.

There is a reason the court accepted the filing......

The question is not was the law broken...the question is "will he produce a loophole that the court is not aware of"

In the meantime....enjoy your perfectly ethical ideal Preisent who has done nothing but great things for our country.


Yeah I know, ya'll pseudo-con must patronize anyone who defends President Obama in anyway.

Please expand upon the reason the court accepted the filing. Did the law firm have the applicable fee or not.

The legal questions came up when Reid did the same pro-forma secessions.
 
The Constitution is just a minor annoying inconvenience for the Socialists/Progressives. They've shown themselves for who they really are. NDAA and all these other Unconstitutional power-grabs show what they're really all about. Party before Country. Always Party before Country.
 
Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?

You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.

Actually they have adjourned until tomorrow at noon. President Obama could appoint somebody right now too. Totally within his Constutitonal authority.

They will not be back in session until the 23rd.

Corrrection tomorrow at 10:30........
Did the House agree to the recess?

No?

Then it's not a recess, is it?
 
You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.

Actually they have adjourned until tomorrow at noon. President Obama could appoint somebody right now too. Totally within his Constutitonal authority.

They will not be back in session until the 23rd.

Corrrection tomorrow at 10:30........
Did the House agree to the recess?

No?

Then it's not a recess, is it?
They don't have to agree to a Senate recess that is shorter than 3 days.
 
You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.

That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."

The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.

The President should know better. So should you.

Actually they have adjourned until tomorrow at noon. President Obama could appoint somebody right now too. Totally within his Constutitonal authority.

They will not be back in session until the 23rd.

Corrrection tomorrow at 10:30........
Did the House agree to the recess?

No?

Then it's not a recess, is it?

It was a real sleazy move on Obama's part. I hope the Courts do remedy the situation.
 
Actually they have adjourned until tomorrow at noon. President Obama could appoint somebody right now too. Totally within his Constutitonal authority.

They will not be back in session until the 23rd.

Corrrection tomorrow at 10:30........
Did the House agree to the recess?

No?

Then it's not a recess, is it?
They don't have to agree to a Senate recess that is shorter than 3 days.
I don't recall that in the Constitution. Can you point it out, please? Kthnxbai.
 
Yawn, Have the Senate Republicans come back from their Reces.....um....er..ah.. vacation,(yeah vacation that's it) yet to mount some kind of counter to the president appointment?

The Senate is currently controlled by the Democrats, in case you missed it. They seem to be in session when they want to pass shitty legislation and in recess when they want Obama to make shitty appointments.
Totally unconstitutional. No leg to stand on. If Bush had done this the libs here would be screaming for impeachment.

Uh huh sure. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, President Obama would have no problem getting the appointments past the advise and consent hurdle. Nope, they have a simple majority. They do not control the process. But I'm sure you are for a straight up confirmation votes on the Senate floor without the threat of a filibuster right?

Just as soon as you condemn the SAME action by Reid when Bush was President. I made many posts about a straight up vote and your types just poo pooed it, saying it was Constitutional for the Senate to do refuse to go in recess with the exafct procedure used this time. Back then it was of course Unconstitutional for Bush but now according to you liberal dumb asses it is Constitutional.
 
Did the House agree to the recess?

No?

Then it's not a recess, is it?
They don't have to agree to a Senate recess that is shorter than 3 days.
I don't recall that in the Constitution. Can you point it out, please? Kthnxbai.


You'll have to forgive me for my ultra-liberal interpretation of the Constitution, but my reading of this:
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.

suggests to me that it is in fact OK for the Senate to adjourn for 3 days or less without the consent of the House. Am I wrong?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top