Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
please list the recess appointments made by Nixon, Carter, Kennedy and Eisenhower, for starters.
You ARE that stupid. Let me spell it out to you AGAIN. Bush only appointed people that the Senate refused to allow a vote on. There was no check and balance, the democrats refused to allow any vote at all.
And I suggest you reread your Constitution and the LAWS of the land, The President most definately has the power and the RIGHT to appoint people during recess.
Every President does and as far as I know every President has done SO.
Let me guess your under 30 and a product of our enlightened liberally destroyed public school system?
I don't need to, your playing games with my intent doesn't change the fact that such appointments are LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and have been done through out our Nations History. NOR does it change the fact the Democrats obstructed the process by refusing a yes no vote.
Last I checked " as far as I know" leaves room for me to be wrong, but do explain it another way.
Technically speaking. It is done to avoid recess appointments. They have one Senator go in every day and officially convene a session of the Senate. Typically, there isn't going to be anyone else there so the Senate isn't really in session. It's just a technicality. Yep. But a lawyer buddy once told me that technicalities are the line between legal and not legal.
Any thoughts on this? Misuse of the process or legitimate political tactic. Just another tool in the toolbox. The problem is that it is becomeing so predictable. I tend to think of it more along the lines of a legitimate tactic, though the Democrats doing it will just ensure that every Senate does this from here on out whenever the President is of the other party, so it starts another area where tit-for-tat will be played. Still, it seems the Senate can do this legitimately.
As an aside, I think if you're going to have a filibuster the Senate ought to require Senators to actually filibuster, not just take a quick headcount to see if there are 60 votes to end one if it DID happen. Yep. It should require leather lungs and no breaks. If he leaves the floor without a proper turnover to the next filibusterer..... game over. No potty breaks.
Yup, the next time the Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Dem if they do this exact stunt you will hear the howls from the libs about obstruction and usurping power and any other claim to bad mouth the move and of course the press will be right there egging them on. Gotta love equal access and fair play huh? I don't mind em doing it except that it wastes time, money, etc. IOW business as usual.
This seems to be the only way to keep Bush from ushering more harmful appointments who would never make through a Senate hearing anyhow. Why not simply convene a hearing and then vote him down? Which would demonstrate dominance? I think that this tactic demonstrates weakness on the dems part. If you are going to oppose someone man up, get on, hang on, and ride hard.
Any president that uses the recess to circumvent Constitutional law should be slapped, but that God we have some Senators willing to put an end to this practice. Are you asserting that a recess apointment is illegal? If so, please cite your source.
I think it is a very creative way to stop Bush's use of recess appointments.
Just think back to all those changes made to committee rules when the republicans were in power.... now that the tables have been, at least partially turned, I think it is refreshing to see the democrats flexing what muscle they can flex with a republican in the white house and a filibuster wielding minority standing against them. If this is flexing, then I would really hate to see it when they are weak and caving in.
If republicans feel frustrated now, just wait until they are rendered even MORE irrelevant by a democrat in the white house! Just so long as there isn't anymore blue dresses and cigars.
I am 39. And I asked if you remember John Bolton. That guy did not deserve a vote and never should have been appointed.
McConnell's in trouble...Coleman is in trouble.... Sununu is in trouble... Collins is in trouble... Smith may have a primary fight from the right just to make it to the general election and five incumbents are retiring.
We get to sixty, watch out!
You're absolutely right. No way should either party have complete control without a check. I can't believe you're even hoping for such a thing. That's just BEGGING for a war.
The Constitution of the United States said:The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. -- Source
From Art2, Section 2:
At this point, since we've established that the executive is within his authority as granted by the Constitution, we need to know if the one senator on the floor is allowed via the existing rules for the senate. Anyone got link?
I think another interesting question is whether of what the definition of "happen" is. If the vacancy "happened" while the senate was IN session, does the president get to wait until they are out in order to fill it under that provision?
There may be a ruling on your question somewhere but I frankly don't know. Too many variables. Assume the vacancy occurred during the time the senate was in session....
Did the Senate move expeditiosly to perform thier constitutional duties so as to fill the vacancy in session? If not, then a recess appointment seems to be on firm ground IMO.
Did the Senate overtly attempt to block the nomination without actually subjecting to a vote? IF yes, then a recess appointment seems to be on firm ground IMO.
If I were the prez, and the appointment(s) were critical fills....... then I'd appoint and put em to work. To hell with the senate if they won't do their job. It would quickly be a matter for the courts.
BTW, I am all for the senate having a reasonable time to debate and do due diligence of say 30-60 days. Then an up/down vote. But having an appointee standing by and doing essentially nothing but await the senates pleasure seems a waste of time/money.
And by making those recess appointment he circumvented Congress and that circumvents the Constitution.
Whatever else one may say about recess appointments, they certainly do not circumvent the Constitution. They are explicitly provided for by it:
Art. II Sec. 2
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
I disagree. I think that we should give parties a chance to run the whole show and show us what they can do... and if they don't do a good job, toss them out and let the other party try to show us what THEY can do....
divided government, in less partisan times, was a recipe for compromising and coming together to create good law that made sense to both sides.... in today's world, divided government is a recipe for gridlock and angst.
I can't go along with your reasoning. Far too dangerous to let the extremes of either side have total control. While I agree with your second paragraph, I prefer gridlock to having the political agendas of either party pushed unabated.
I don't think that the "extremes" of the democratic party could ever really have control. As much noise as the right makes about moveon.org, the real control of the democratic party still lies with trial lawyers, teachers, and labor unions. I know you don't want to believe that, but trust me....I am a democratic county committee member and a delegate to our state convention every election year.... the far left has a voice, but a minor one.
and we've HAD one party's agenda pushed unabated for six years.... I know that I certainly would like to see a different direction!
I don't think that the "extremes" of the democratic party could ever really have control. As much noise as the right makes about moveon.org, the real control of the democratic party still lies with trial lawyers, teachers, and labor unions. I know you don't want to believe that, but trust me....I am a democratic county committee member and a delegate to our state convention every election year.... the far left has a voice, but a minor one.
and we've HAD one party's agenda pushed unabated for six years.... I know that I certainly would like to see a different direction!
The extremes of the Democrat party already have control. Pelosi and Reid are kooks.
While you may think trial lawyers, teachers and labor unions are not "extremes," they certainly do not represent anything I believe in.
And I'll tell the same thing I told my wife, a NC Democrat when I met her, prior to our moving to CA ... she onlt THOUGHT she was a liberal. THEN she got a wakeup call from the Left Coast.
THE GOP agenda has hardly been pushed. Dems have obstructed them every step of the way, and the Republicans were too gutless to just take charge. They backed down in almost every instance as if they were the minority. That's why they didn't get returned to office in 2006.
What direction? You'd like to see us get back on the Euro-path to sliding further into socialist mediocrity? Thanks, but no thanks.
That's the thing, they AREN'T kooks. And dismissing them as kooks is non-productive and keeps this country in the mess it is. If you think they're extremists, I'd suggest you haven't really looked at the extremes.
As for the dems being obstructive. That's simply untrue. They got their faces pushed into the mud for six years while the loonies on the right did whatever they felt with. If the repubs didn't get their agenda "pushed", it's because they chose not to. Not a single vote went to the floor of the house for those six years where the bill couldn't be passed without a single democrat voting for it.
Euro path? mediocrity? Silliness.... how about proper management? An agenda that isn't xenophobic and chicken-hawk driven? An agenda that follows the "humble foreign policy" and fiscal management that Bush SAID he was running on?? An agenda that stops the infringements on the Fourth Amendment? That ends rendition and restores habeas corpus? Those things would be nice. The ball-less wonders that are the democratic party haven't even used their majority in congress to stop the loonies from the path they've misled the country down.... haven't even taken a stand.
So much for the "extremes".
Most important things in life depend on making the right choices. To do so requires sound judgment, for which neither intellect nor study may suffice; and, whenever in doubt, one need have resort to good advice. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of right or left, but in choosing rightly and wisely. This last has been the major fault and failing of the present administration, for President Bush - like him or not - has repeatedly made bad decisions, for which he received bad advice; and in which mistakes he has wrongly chosen to persist, compounding the error. It is time now that President Bush be made to see the error of his ways.
We - all of us - have a large stake in seeing that President Bush does not fail, for it is on We the People that the consequences of such failure will be visited; and not just ourselves, but upon our children and grandchildren and generations to come. It is time that we put aside our selfish, partisan interests, and unite in the cause of our country, our Constitution, and the commonweal. In this we must not fail, we must not hesitate or falter, but we must act with diligence and courage in the performance of our duties as citizens, both in choosing our representatives and elected officials and in seeing that they act in accordance with the law and in the interests of our nation.
I can agree with your second paragraph, but not the first. Bush has not repeatedly made bad mistakes. he has made some bad mistakes. The rest is hype. Add his name to the long list of Presidents who have made some bad calls.
The only President who arguably may not have would be William Henry Harrison since he died before in office so soon after elected he probably didn't have time to make any.
One of the biggest injustices that has been done during this current administration has been making accusations with a complete lack of historical context. Time and again all I see is "Bush lied" or "Bush screwed up" as if his screwups are any more important than those who preceeded him. And I'm STILL waiting for lie #1 to be proven without some wordsmithing and bigtime stretching of facts.
The left has been whining for 7 years. The solution is simple. Don't want Bush? Offer something better; which, they did not. And if there were no term limits, I'd vote for him again rather than either offering from the Democrats this time around.
