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

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.

The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.

So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.

DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.

Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.

He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.
 
You have already established the ability to quibble.

I don't make the Senate rules.

Neither do you.

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.

The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.

So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.

DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.

Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.

He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.

irrelevant? I'm not the one who brought up the fact that the Senate passed a bill during their proforma, YOU DID, so why did YOU bring up something YOU consider to be irrelevant?
 
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?
Per the calendars, there wasn't a recess. Days in Session - 112th Congress 1st Session - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Note: Big bold text makes you look hysterical. Just sayin'.

But given your insistence that Obama is infallible, I understand your desperation when presented with incontrovertible evidence he screwed up.

You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?
 
I didn't make it up.




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

When they do, let us know.

The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.

So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.

DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.

Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.

He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.

irrelevant? I'm not the one who brought up the fact that the Senate passed a bill during their proforma, YOU DID, so why did YOU bring up something YOU consider to be irrelevant?

You can't even keep up with the conversation.

Try to follow along this time, moron.

IF they passed a bill WHILE they were in the pro forma session, which the President then signed, you dipshit, then both they and the President were necessarily agreeing that the Senate was in session.

If they were in session, idiot, then they were not in recess.

If they were not in recess (and they weren't), then the authority to make a recess appointment never materialized.

This is all WAY the fuck over your pin head, apparently.

What was irrelevant was whether they acted with or without a quorum which is what YOU brought up, stupid. THAT goes to the heart of a pro forma session, you imbecile, but is NOT in the slightest bit relevant to whether or not THEY are the ones who determine whether they are in session or not. Not you. Not the President. And for whatever it's worth, the President had already agreed that they WERE in session.

You don't even understand the nature or meaning of a pro forma session.
 
Last edited:
I didn't make it up.




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

When they do, let us know.

The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.

So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.

DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.

Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.

He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.

irrelevant? I'm not the one who brought up the fact that the Senate passed a bill during their proforma, YOU DID, so why did YOU bring up something YOU consider to be irrelevant?
I brought it up to show that the Senate was not in recess.

And they weren't.
 
The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.

So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.

DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.

Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.

He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.

irrelevant? I'm not the one who brought up the fact that the Senate passed a bill during their proforma, YOU DID, so why did YOU bring up something YOU consider to be irrelevant?
I brought it up to show that the Senate was not in recess.

And they weren't.

Right!

And the President clearly agreed since he signed the bill.
 
He had to do what he had to do for the good of the Country. The Repubs sure wasn't doing their constitutional duties.
Oh, goody, someone else who thinks Congress is obligated to rubber-stamp the President's wishes.

my gawd...If he was doing something good for the Country, then his approvals would be 100%..funny how a Majority doesn't think he deserves to be re-elected...
but don't tell that to the Obamabots.:eusa_shhh:
 
The constitution explicitly grants the President the power to fill vacancies when the Senate is in recess with commissions that expire at the end of the Senate's session. It's absolutely asinine to insist that Obama violated the constitution for exercising a power explicitly given to his office.

Once again: in order for the President to exercise that authority, genius, the Senate has to be IN recess.

It wasn't.

So what's asinine is your refusal to premise you whinnying braying blather on the actual state of facts.

Oh, so what was it then? A bathroom break?
 
The constitution explicitly grants the President the power to fill vacancies when the Senate is in recess with commissions that expire at the end of the Senate's session. It's absolutely asinine to insist that Obama violated the constitution for exercising a power explicitly given to his office.

Once again: in order for the President to exercise that authority, genius, the Senate has to be IN recess.

It wasn't.

So what's asinine is your refusal to premise you whinnying braying blather on the actual state of facts.

Oh, so what was it then? A bathroom break?

THEY themselves make their rules. I know. It says so in the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Anyway, what it was is not a mystery. And no, no bathroom break. It was a pro forma session.

Do try to follow along next time so you don't come across as quite so pitiably ignorant.
 
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.

Where does it say anything about recesses in there?
 
If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess.

What a stupid thing to say. Congress is typically in recess Fri-Mon. Oh, you DO realize there is a difference between an adjournment and a recess, right?

You aren't REALLY claiming, are you, that if Congress takes a weekend RECESS the President can appoint a Constitutional Officer without their advice and consent on a Saturday or a Sunday?

Damn.

The Constitution really is meaningless in your narrow-minded pin-headed universe.

:cuckoo:

Besides which, your quibble doesn't work, anyway.

The SENATE said it was still in session. As long as it's in session, it's not taking either an adjournment OR a recess.
 
Last edited:
Right!

And the President clearly agreed since he signed the bill.

For the love of God, would you please get back to reality? Since when does the President signing a bill into law magically make the Senate in session and out of recess?
 
You aren't REALLY claiming, are you, that if Congress takes a weekend RECESS the President can appoint a Constitutional Officer without their advice and consent on a Saturday or a Sunday?

Constitution says it's cool. Go complain to James Madison if you got a problem with it. They didn't do a good job at being very clear on that one. They should have specified a time period.

The Constitution really is meaningless in your narrow-minded pin-headed universe.

Quite the opposite. I'm going off of what the Constitution says. You're trying to rewrite the constitution to include things that aren't there.

The SENATE said it was still in session. As long as it's in session, it's not taking either an adjournment OR a recess.

Again, you're an idiot. A recess is something that happens when a body is in session.
 
Last edited:
THEY themselves make their rules. I know. It says so in the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Yeah, so? Doesn't mean anything here. They were still in recess.

Anyway, what it was is not a mystery. And no, no bathroom break. It was a pro forma session.

Really? And what happened after that? Oh, I know, a recess.

Do try to follow along next time so you don't come across as quite so pitiably ignorant.

:lol: You're the one who is confusing adjournment with recess, and who can't seem to comprehend the fact that the President signing a bill into law doesn't automatically bring the Senate out of recess.
 
The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.

So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.

DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.

Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.

He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.

irrelevant? I'm not the one who brought up the fact that the Senate passed a bill during their proforma, YOU DID, so why did YOU bring up something YOU consider to be irrelevant?

You can't even keep up with the conversation.

Try to follow along this time, moron.

IF they passed a bill WHILE they were in the pro forma session, which the President then signed, you dipshit, then both they and the President were necessarily agreeing that the Senate was in session.

If they were in session, idiot, then they were not in recess.

If they were not in recess (and they weren't), then the authority to make a recess appointment never materialized.

This is all WAY the fuck over your pin head, apparently.

What was irrelevant was whether they acted with or without a quorum which is what YOU brought up, stupid. THAT goes to the heart of a pro forma session, you imbecile, but is NOT in the slightest bit relevant to whether or not THEY are the ones who determine whether they are in session or not. Not you. Not the President. And for whatever it's worth, the President had already agreed that they WERE in session.

You don't even understand the nature or meaning of a pro forma session.

You're an idiot. A recess is something that happens when a body is IN SESSION. If the body is not in session, it's in adjournment. There's a difference between recess and adjournment. You claim to be a lawyer, yet you don't know this fundamental fact?

Also, the President signing a bill into law does not make the Senate in session, nor does it take the Senate out of recess. That's like saying that brewing coffee makes the tree still standing.
 
irrelevant? I'm not the one who brought up the fact that the Senate passed a bill during their proforma, YOU DID, so why did YOU bring up something YOU consider to be irrelevant?
I brought it up to show that the Senate was not in recess.

And they weren't.

Right!

And the President clearly agreed since he signed the bill.
Bush attempted a non-recess recess appointment, was told it was illegal, and rescinded it.

Obama thinks he's above the law. His bootlicking sycophants agree.
 
He had to do what he had to do for the good of the Country. The Repubs sure wasn't doing their constitutional duties.
Oh, goody, someone else who thinks Congress is obligated to rubber-stamp the President's wishes.

my gawd...If he was doing something good for the Country, then his approvals would be 100%..funny how a Majority doesn't think he deserves to be re-elected...
but don't tell that to the Obamabots.:eusa_shhh:
You hush. If Obama wants it, it's best for the country, will cleanse toxins from the air, will make children perform better in school, and will make unicorns once again roam the meadows.

Or so I've been led to believe.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top