The Demoicrats and the left support Obama as he violates the Constitution and the law

[RetiredGySgt]

Obama made an illegal appointment. Recess appointments may only be made while Congress is in RECESS. It never recessed. He violated the law and the left on this board is applauding and cheering.

And the left wonders why the right finds them to be ignorant and hypocrites.

Once again for the slow and stupid, Congress never recessed. If Congress does not recess a President must get approval for his nominees from the Senate.

Lawyers on this board that are democrats or liberals are applauding his decision to BREAK the law and violate the Constitution.

Once again for Modbert, this is not about whether he can appoint in a recess, he can. This is about a flagrant violation of the law and the Constitution. Congress never recessed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just another list of violations against the people.

 

[eflatminor]

Sure he broke the law. But he has such a nice smile, I'm sure he means well.

 

[candycorn]

Wow...this is the latest bee in your bonnett?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow...this is the latest bee in your bonnett?

So when the next Republican President just ignores the law, you will be fine with it? You people AMAZE me. You do not care that the President of the United States just openly committed an illegal act. You applaud it like it is a good thing.

More proof the Democrats are enemies of the very document that establishes our Government. Jillian included, she has weighed in on the idea that Obama is ok clearly violating the law.

 

[occupied]

Wow...this is the latest bee in your bonnett?

So when the next Republican President just ignores the law, you will be fine with it? You people AMAZE me. You do not care that the President of the United States just openly committed an illegal act. You applaud it like it is a good thing.

More proof the Democrats are enemies of the very document that establishes our Government. Jillian included, she has weighed in on the idea that Obama is ok clearly violating the law.

Has he Clearly violated the law? Tell your republican congressmen to start impeachment hearings IMMEDIATELY and see what they do. There is not a republican out there that will risk diminishing the office of the president because he is using the powers they created and feel a republican president should have, it's a crying shame that he must resort to such republican measures in the face of a congress that is incapable of doing it's damned job.

 

[BlindBoo]

U got it all wrong. It was the the Republican obstructing the Law passed by Congress that forced the President to make this recess appointment.

The only reason the former Ohio attorney general wasn’t confirmed by the Senate was because his nomination couldn’t meet the crazy procedural 60-vote threshold now required to do anything in the world’s most deliberative (and gridlocked) body. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who openly declared that his No. 1 job was to ensure the president’s reelection defeat this November, blasted Cordray’s recess appointment, saying Obama “has arrogantly circumvented the American people.” Only in the Senate would the appointment of a nominee who got 53 out of 98 votes qualify as arrogant circumvention.

Obama picks recess fight with GOP over Cordray - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats and the left have come closer to their dreams of socialist dictatorship than ever. They won't stop now.

 

[Truthmatters]

President Obama Still Has All The Legal Authority He Needs To Make A Recess Appointment Right Now | ThinkProgress


nice try but its not true

 

[BlindBoo]

Democrats and the left have come closer to their dreams of socialist dictatorship than ever. They won't stop now.

Damn it! I thought he was a Fascist like Beninto. Shit, I just can't keep up with the looneys anymore......

 

[rightwinger]

There is no violation

Just a difference in interpretation of the law. Congress sure does look like it is in recess to me. How many bills did they vote on this week?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no violation

Just a difference in interpretation of the law. Congress sure does look like it is in recess to me. How many bills did they vote on this week?

Unfucking BELIEVABLE you assholes applaud the violation of the law. You support a Democrat violating the Constitution.

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


No interpretation needed. It has been clear since the Constitution was ratified. Neither house can recess without the approval of the other and unless they recess the President can not make appointments.

You people are fucking stupid and beyond the pale. You support a clear violation of the Constitution when a Democrat is President.

You are all enemies of the State and should be treated as such.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It never recessed.

Evidence?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It never recessed.

Evidence?

Wrong as usual. The House never recessed. Or can you provide us with a link to when they recessed? One does not prove a negative, you need to prove the positive.

 

[g5000]

It does not matter if the House recessed. The Senate did, and that is what is in the Constitution.


"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."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

Bush did the same thing Obama just did and he was challenged in 2004.

Evans vs. Stephens:

The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an
authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s
appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the
limit today. Although a President has not before appointed a judge to an Article
III court during an intrasession recess as short as the one in this case,
appointments to other offices -- offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation --
have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter.8
Furthermore, several times in the past, fairly short intrasession recesses have given
rise to presidential appointments of judges to Article III courts.9
Twelve Presidents have made more than 285 intrasession recess
appointments of persons to offices that ordinarily require consent of the Senate.
So, given the words of the Constitution and the history, we are unpersuaded by the
argument that the recess appointment power may only be used in an intersession recess, but not an intrasession recess. Furthermore, what we understand to be the
main purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause -- to enable the President to fill
vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government -- supports reading
both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of
the Clause.

Obama's appointment was entirely constitutional.

Class dismissed!

 

[rightwinger]

It never recessed.

Evidence?

Wrong as usual. The House never recessed. Or can you provide us with a link to when they recessed? One does not prove a negative, you need to prove the positive.

Seems to be a matter of interpretation

Is it a recess if nobody is in session and you open and close a session in twenty seconds?

What is the constitutional validity of recess appointments?

Is the filibuster as implemented today constitutionally valid?

Obama is within his rights to appoint someone to the job

 

[Inthemiddle]

It never recessed.

Evidence?

Wrong as usual. The House never recessed. Or can you provide us with a link to when they recessed? One does not prove a negative, you need to prove the positive.

You need to prove your claims. You're the one who opened up this discussion. You made the claims. The burden is yours.

 

[ladyliberal]

It's interesting that a wide variety of media sources are referring to these appointments as recess appointments (see, eg, Republicans furious over Obama recess appointments – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs, Saving good government: Obama’s recess appointments - Guest Voices - The Washington Post, Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB - WSJ.com, Another Uproar Over Recess Appointments -- But What Exactly Is a Congressional 'Recess'? - Fox News). Do you think that there is a vast conspiracy in the media (including WSJ and Fox News) to incorrectly describe these as recess appointments, or do the constitutional experts cited simply fail to understand what is plain to you?

As for your citations from the Constitution, I find them unconvincing. If anything, the reference to adjournments that last for more than three days suggests that adjournments can last for either more or less than three days (which would surely be the default, in any case).

The Senate confirmation process has wandered quite far afield from that I believe was envisioned by the framers, but Obama's recent appointments are a marginal change (and one that would surely endure legal and constitutional challenges) provoked by substantially greater Senate obstructionism.

 

[g5000]

Slow down. Go back and read my last post.

The House does not confirm the President's appointments. Therefore, whether or not they are in recess does not mean fuck-all.

The Senate confirms appointments and so if the Senate is in recess, the Constution states the President may make a recess appointment. It does not say "Congress" or "the House". Just the Senate.

Read the Constitution.

Obama appointed Corday during a Senate recess.

And the Evans vs. Stephens court decision stated that the length of the recess is not a factor.


Slam dunk. Done. Class dismissed!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow...this is the latest bee in your bonnett?

So when the next Republican President just ignores the law, you will be fine with it? You people AMAZE me. You do not care that the President of the United States just openly committed an illegal act. You applaud it like it is a good thing.

More proof the Democrats are enemies of the very document that establishes our Government. Jillian included, she has weighed in on the idea that Obama is ok clearly violating the law.

Has he Clearly violated the law? Tell your republican congressmen to start impeachment hearings IMMEDIATELY and see what they do. There is not a republican out there that will risk diminishing the office of the president because he is using the powers they created and feel a republican president should have, it's a crying shame that he must resort to such republican measures in the face of a congress that is incapable of doing it's damned job.

They won't go for impeachment... not because it is legal or that he did not violate... it is because of the power grabs they all want and not pissing off those who fill your donations wallets... and not pissing those off you have to buy favor from...

It's a shame this will probably go unpunished