Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,378
- 20,137
- 1,915
No, it is more than just a title... Go look it up...Yet, I would be against it still. It matters little to Me who the President is, but that the power of the Executive is strictly curtailed to remain within the boundaries of the Constitution.Actually this is a good thing. Obama was circumventing the rules anyway with recess appointments, even when the Senate wasn't in recess. One of the bigger excuses for Obama was that the Republcians blocked ALL of his nominations that a lot of the positions were not filled.
Now that excuse goes out the window.
Now, when Romney is elected, he can shove any appointment he wants down Reid's throat. Nice move democrats. Remember, you are in charge, it is not the Republicans.
A recess appointment, while acceptable, is very limited in scope and last for the duration of the term and is then subject to consent of Congress at the end of that term.
I would be more accepting of a law that did away with recess appointments completely, along with these so called 'czars'.
Government power needs to be restricted, not expanded.
How would you do away with czars? Czar is just a title the media gives someone.