Raygun made over 250 recess appointments

[Ibentoken]

So the far left is still crying like little babies because Obama violated the constitution?

Correction; the far right is crying like little babies, trying to get people to "believe" Obama violated the constitution.....like they tried to get people "believe" he was a Muslim, and a Kenyan, and a communist, and a socialist, and a fascist, and a racist. O for six, going for seven.

You're a sick liar. God Bless America.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If I remember my Constitutional law, Boo...and it's been awhile so I apologize if my memory is a bit off...I believe the original intent was to give the President the authority to replace someone who left during the rather long recesses that Congress had back then. The Founding Fathers didn't want to force Congress to have to come back from the jobs that most of them held when they weren't in Washington passing legislation, just to replace someone who departed suddenly. This was never supposed to be a way to do an end run around the Senate.

yes it recess appointment was meant to fill a vacancy that occurred

during the recess

not to hold on to a nominee until a recess occurs

then drop them in during a recess

however that has become a common practice

And it's wrong for BOTH parties to be doing it! So let's take that issue to the Supreme Court and nail it down so this nonsense stops. Nominating people for positions of power that the opposition HATES is not going to make our system run efficiently. How about we nominate people who are SO OUTSTANDING that nobody can question their credentials!

So let's take that issue to the Supreme Court and nail it down

upon further review

they did take up this issue

and gave it blessing

 

[AmericanFirst]

If hypocrisy was water, the cons would drown.

The difference is congress was probably really on recess. Obamashitforbrains can't do anything right and lawfully because he is a idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

So the far left is still crying like little babies because Obama violated the constitution?

Correction; the far right is crying like little babies, trying to get people to "believe" Obama violated the constitution.....like they tried to get people "believe" he was a Muslim, and a Kenyan, and a communist, and a socialist, and a fascist, and a racist. O for six, going for seven.

There is no trying to get people to believe he violated the constitution - he clearly violated it and the SCOTUS has ruled that he violated the constitution - period.

There are people like you who are trying to get people to believe that he has not even though it is CRYSTAL CLEAR he violated the constitution. Even when the court rules 9 - 0 you don’t believe it. The depths of that partisanship is sickening.

 

[FA_Q2]

The bottom line is this. When an Obama nominee is not approved, he can't use a weekend as an excuse to do an end around congress and evade the constitution. Why do leftists hate the constitution?

Oh, the drama! Neither will the next President facing either a House or Senate controlled by the opposition party. Because using the pro forma sessions will become the norm for denying a president his constitutional authority. Reid should have thought about that when he pulled this trick on Bush.

You are thinking this completely backwards. There is SUPPOSED to be contention between the branches as that is the entire point between the division of power. Recess appointments were NEVER meant to be a way to remove the power of confirmation by the congress. That is exactly what they have become. The power itself has become nothing more than a way to abuse the presidential authority.

THAT is what is wrong. What congress did was essentially re-assert the power that they are supposed to have in the first place. If you can’t get a nominee through then you can’t get them through. It is disgusting that the president simply waits for a recess and then appoints whoever they want. Unacceptable.

 

[FA_Q2]

What's amusing to me is that the Supreme Court just voted 9-0 that Barack Obama was wrong...that's a unanimous vote including the two extremely liberal Justices that were APPOINTED by Obama to the Court...and yet you STILL don't want to admit that Obama was out of line doing what he did!

I thought Harry Reid was wrong to use that pro forma session stunt to block Bushes constitutional authority too. Many Republicans did at the time if I recall correctly. Funny how the consequences of some ideas change over time.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Boo...and it's been awhile so I apologize if my memory is a bit off...I believe the original intent was to give the President the authority to replace someone who left during the rather long recesses that Congress had back then. The Founding Fathers didn't want to force Congress to have to come back from the jobs that most of them held when they weren't in Washington passing legislation, just to replace someone who departed suddenly. This was never supposed to be a way to do an end run around the Senate.

Exactly. What the power is used for now has no connection with what it is supposed to be.

As far as I am concerned, this power should be completely removed. There is no reason whatsoever for recess appointments in today’s world. One of a few amendments that I think should be passed to bring the constitution in line with modern technology.

 

[FA_Q2]

No they didn't. They ruled them unconstitutional. There is a difference.

Nope there is no difference. The appointments were illegal. Period. Every act by the NLRB during that time is void. Can we sue them for back salary?

Then you know what law was broken? What was that law he broke?

Are they going to charge the President with unconstitutionally appointing someone?

Does he even get a ticket?

Are you trying to state that the constitution is not law?

That is asinine. You know he violated the constitution; that is now fact with the SCOTUS ruling. Violating the constitution IS breaking the law. The supreme law of the land.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As has been noted the difference between Reagan and Obama is Reagan's appointments were ACTUALLY during a recess, Obama's were not.

 

[Kosh]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hY1eagq88]Reagan Warned Us About Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope there is no difference. The appointments were illegal. Period. Every act by the NLRB during that time is void. Can we sue them for back salary?

Then you know what law was broken? What was that law he broke?

Are they going to charge the President with unconstitutionally appointing someone?

Does he even get a ticket?

Are you trying to state that the constitution is not law?

That is asinine. You know he violated the constitution; that is now fact with the SCOTUS ruling. Violating the constitution IS breaking the law. The supreme law of the land.

Who gets charged with a crime when the SC declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.? When they declared many parts of the New Deal unconstitutional what crime was FDR charged with?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious...does anyone else find it amazing that someone who was supposed to be a "constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama...a guy who taught the subject as a college lecturer...keeps getting slapped down by the Supreme Court for violations TO the Constitution?

Could it possibly be that Barry wasn't half as smart as the liberals here were proclaiming back in 2008? Could it possibly be that he's not very bright AT ALL when it comes to the Constitution?

 

[Oldstyle]

Or is this all still Bush's fault? LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

Then you know what law was broken? What was that law he broke?

Are they going to charge the President with unconstitutionally appointing someone?

Does he even get a ticket?

Are you trying to state that the constitution is not law?

That is asinine. You know he violated the constitution; that is now fact with the SCOTUS ruling. Violating the constitution IS breaking the law. The supreme law of the land.

Who gets charged with a crime when the SC declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.? When they declared many parts of the New Deal unconstitutional what crime was FDR charged with?

Utterly irrelevant.

That does not change the fact that Obama broke the law.

The charge is simply to bring about the 'punishment' for the law in question. People in positions like the president don’t actually pay for the crimes they commit - they stuff them off and ignore them.


That does not change the fact that he broke the law with those appointments. The courts have affirmed it. You are trying to play semantics in an effort to distract from this fact.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm curious...does anyone else find it amazing that someone who was supposed to be a "constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama...a guy who taught the subject as a college lecturer...keeps getting slapped down by the Supreme Court for violations TO the Constitution?

Could it possibly be that Barry wasn't half as smart as the liberals here were proclaiming back in 2008? Could it possibly be that he's not very bright AT ALL when it comes to the Constitution?

there are pro constitutional scholars and anti constitutional scholars

he would be the latter

which fits in well with his first declaration

that "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

 

[jon_berzerk]

As has been noted the difference between Reagan and Obama is Reagan's appointments were ACTUALLY during a recess, Obama's were not.

obama on his own

declared the senate in recess

when clearly that is not his prerogative

9 zip affirmed that

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious...does anyone else find it amazing that someone who was supposed to be a "constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama...a guy who taught the subject as a college lecturer...keeps getting slapped down by the Supreme Court for violations TO the Constitution?

Could it possibly be that Barry wasn't half as smart as the liberals here were proclaiming back in 2008? Could it possibly be that he's not very bright AT ALL when it comes to the Constitution?

there are pro constitutional scholars and anti constitutional scholars

he would be the latter

which fits in well with his first declaration

that "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

I've always contended that Barack Obama was "underwhelming" as a lecturer. It should be readily apparent by this point that it was his selection as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review that led to his position at the University of Chicago not his grasp of Constitutional law. It's rather amusing to hear anyone refer to him as a "constitutional scholar".

 

[BlindBoo]

Are you trying to state that the constitution is not law?

That is asinine. You know he violated the constitution; that is now fact with the SCOTUS ruling. Violating the constitution IS breaking the law. The supreme law of the land.

Who gets charged with a crime when the SC declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.? When they declared many parts of the New Deal unconstitutional what crime was FDR charged with?

Utterly irrelevant.

That does not change the fact that Obama broke the law.

The charge is simply to bring about the 'punishment' for the law in question. People in positions like the president don’t actually pay for the crimes they commit - they stuff them off and ignore them.


That does not change the fact that he broke the law with those appointments. The courts have affirmed it. You are trying to play semantics in an effort to distract from this fact.

Specifically, which law did he break?

 

[Oldstyle]

Who gets charged with a crime when the SC declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.? When they declared many parts of the New Deal unconstitutional what crime was FDR charged with?

Utterly irrelevant.

That does not change the fact that Obama broke the law.

The charge is simply to bring about the 'punishment' for the law in question. People in positions like the president don’t actually pay for the crimes they commit - they stuff them off and ignore them.


That does not change the fact that he broke the law with those appointments. The courts have affirmed it. You are trying to play semantics in an effort to distract from this fact.

Specifically, which law did he break?

The Supreme Court voted 9-0 that President Obama violated the separation of powers act of the Constitution when he declared the Senate in "recess" when they were not.

 

[regent]

How many states broke the law or Constitution by segregating their schools before Brown V. Board? How many people were wrongly imprisoned because states did not give suspects their Miranda rights before that decision? That brings up this question, is a law or act legal until a Court declares it illegal? Are we obeying laws today that might be ruled unconstitutional some years from today and declared illegal? Were Obama's recess appointments legal until the Court declared them illegal?

 

[BlindBoo]

Utterly irrelevant.

That does not change the fact that Obama broke the law.

The charge is simply to bring about the 'punishment' for the law in question. People in positions like the president don’t actually pay for the crimes they commit - they stuff them off and ignore them.


That does not change the fact that he broke the law with those appointments. The courts have affirmed it. You are trying to play semantics in an effort to distract from this fact.

Specifically, which law did he break?

The Supreme Court voted 9-0 that President Obama violated the separation of powers act of the Constitution when he declared the Senate in "recess" when they were not.

Nah, they ruled President Obama's "recess appointments" made in 2012 when the Senate was holding only pro-forma sessions every three days and conducting no business, as a way of blocking the President from using the Recess Power, was unconstitutional.