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

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?

Yes. For over 200 years it has been understood to mean that neither house can RECESS without the other. NO President has EVER violated that concept. EVER. Until now. You do kn ow what Precedent is right?
 
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?

Yes. For over 200 years it has been understood to mean that neither house can RECESS without the other. NO President has EVER violated that concept. EVER. Until now. You do kn ow what Precedent is right?

Understood by whom?

Do you seriously think the Founders intended the Senate to perform its advise and consent function with only 1 or 2 Senators present? The Senate was clearly not available to give its advice or consent, was it?
 
Last edited:
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?
Have they adjourned for more than three days? Last I checked the calendar, they hadn't.
 
You'll have to forgive me for my ultra-liberal interpretation of the Constitution, but my reading of this:


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?

Yes. For over 200 years it has been understood to mean that neither house can RECESS without the other. NO President has EVER violated that concept. EVER. Until now. You do kn ow what Precedent is right?

Understood by whom?

Every President that we have had. Every Congress that we have had, Every Court that we have. The people as well.
 
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?
Have they adjourned for more than three days? Last I checked the calendar, they hadn't.

Great. So what's your point exactly?
 
You'll have to forgive me for my ultra-liberal interpretation of the Constitution, but my reading of this:


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?
Have they adjourned for more than three days? Last I checked the calendar, they hadn't.

Great. So what's your point exactly?
It's really quite simple.

The Senate isn't in recess. So Obama can't make a recess appointment.
 
Now if the Senate doesn't appoint whoever Obama wants during the week, he can recess appoint them on Saturday. :thup:
 
It was in recess for 3 days or less, was it not?

Either way, it was certainly not available to advise and consent, was it?
They were available to pass a bill, weren't they?

You're just going to have to accept that Obama can't do whatever he wants to do.

What bill was that?

Hey stupid: do try to keep up. They finalized (passed) the 2 month continuation of the payroll tax cuts (that idiotic bill) DURING the very same pro forma session. Then President Obama pontificated about it and signed it.

He couldn't sign a bill they had passed if he was maintaining that at the very same time they weren't even in session, you ignorant dip shit.

So, the President recognized that they were in session. The fact that it was pro forma was of no relevance to the Liar in Chief THEN. When it suited his political agenda, a pro forma in session was still "in session." But then, when it no longer suited the scumbag, he pretended (i.e., he lied) that "pro forma" was not really "in session." No. NOW, all of a sudden, it was actually a "recess."

Your Obamassiah is a fucking liar and you stand by and applaud his dishonesty and power grab.
 
They were available to pass a bill, weren't they?

You're just going to have to accept that Obama can't do whatever he wants to do.

What bill was that?

Hey stupid: do try to keep up. They finalized (passed) the 2 month continuation of the payroll tax cuts (that idiotic bill) DURING the very same pro forma session. Then President Obama pontificated about it and signed it.

So the Senate was conducting business without a quorum?

So its OK for the Senate to violate the Constitution, but not the President?
 
Last edited:
The GOP is butt hurt that some laws got passed they don't like. These same laws require appointments to some offices.

These laws require these appointments to be made. But the GOP is blocking these laws from being carried out. Even though they admit the guy nominated is eminently qualified for the job.

So the GOP has no room to be lecturing about the law.

Dishonest sore losers.

They are the ones that created this crisis. Not Obama.

They are well within their rights to block what ever appointment they desire. There is nothing illegal about it so your insinuation of them being hypocrites is an invalid argument. If their constituents feel it's obstructive, they'll let them know that. Blocking the president's appointments, however, does not give him the right to break the law, if that is indeed the case here. That is a subject clearly up for debate and something the courts may end up deciding.
 
What bill was that?

Hey stupid: do try to keep up. They finalized (passed) the 2 month continuation of the payroll tax cuts (that idiotic bill) DURING the very same pro forma session. Then President Obama pontificated about it and signed it.

So the Senate was conducting business without a quorum?

You have already established the ability to quibble.

I don't make the Senate rules.

Neither do you.

Neither does our dishonest, manipulative fraud of a President.

The Senate does that.

That YOU don't care for the pro forma session is all well and good, but your vapid opinion does not the law make.

The SOLE legitimate question is "was the Senate in a self-professed pro forma session" or was it not? And the only honest answer is "yes," it was. Ergo, they were not in recess. Ergo, there could have been no valid recess appointment.
 
Last edited:
It was in recess for 3 days or less, was it not?

Either way, it was certainly not available to advise and consent, was it?
They were available to pass a bill, weren't they?

You're just going to have to accept that Obama can't do whatever he wants to do.

What bill was that?
The day before Obama's unconstitutional appointment, the Senate worked on H.R. 3630.

The Senate Calendar shows they are not in recess, and weren't in recess on the 4th.
 
Hey stupid: do try to keep up. They finalized (passed) the 2 month continuation of the payroll tax cuts (that idiotic bill) DURING the very same pro forma session. Then President Obama pontificated about it and signed it.

So the Senate was conducting business without a quorum?

You have already established the ability to quibble.

I don't make the Senate rules.

Neither do you.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
I didn't make it up.


The SOLE legitimate question is "was the Senate in a self-professed pro forma session" or was it not? And the only honest answer is "yes," it was. Ergo, they were not in recess. Ergo, there could have been no valid recess appointment.

yet the Senate has yet to claim that the appointment was unconstitutional.

When they do, let us know.
 
They were available to pass a bill, weren't they?

You're just going to have to accept that Obama can't do whatever he wants to do.

What bill was that?
The day before Obama's unconstitutional appointment, the Senate worked on H.R. 3630.

The Senate Calendar shows they are not in recess, and weren't in recess on the 4th.


OK, then you tell us, when was the recess between the 1st and 2nd sessions of th 112th Senate?
 

Forum List

Back
Top