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

[Uncensored2008]

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

:shrug:

Rightwinger is a pathological liar. He'll say anything to promote his shameful party. Nothing he posts can be believed.

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.

Yep.

RW knows this, he's just lying.

The dims hold party above country. Actually, for sociopaths like RW, the law and constitution aren't even a consideration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

In your personal, subjective, partisan opinion as an enemy of Obama.

Until such time as you can cite a Federal court ruling that the appointment is illegal and un-Constitutional, it is neither.

 

[konradv]

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.

And the Congress doesn't have the balls to call him on this latest violation.

Had it been a Republican? There would be Hell to pay with the left immediately forming parties of whiners/wailers armed with torches and pitchforks calling for heads on a silver platter.

You mean like you're doing?

 

[The T]

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.

And the Congress doesn't have the balls to call him on this latest violation.

Had it been a Republican? There would be Hell to pay with the left immediately forming parties of whiners/wailers armed with torches and pitchforks calling for heads on a silver platter.

You mean like you're doing?

And had it happened? I'd call ANY POTUS on it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's really just a cudgel you use to try to get your way.

The Constitution?

No, it's the law of the land.

The difference is that you of the left seek to be ruled by a strongman, who's word is law. Capricious and contradictory as it may be, whatever the ruler utters is the law of the moment.

We of the old republic prefer codified law, immutable and applicable to all. It's what the fight ultimately boils down to, your desire for rulers verses our desire for liberty under the law.

What you call support, I call hi-jacked. All your so-called "principles" are based on the myth that there was some sort of unanimous "intent" amongst The Founders, when even a cursory review of the subject proves that to be false.

I base my positions on the words of the document.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In your personal, subjective, partisan opinion as an enemy of Obama.

Until such time as you can cite a Federal court ruling that the appointment is illegal and un-Constitutional, it is neither.

As a partisan hack, can you point to precedent where appointments have been made in the past when congress had not met the 3 day intrasession requirement?


Didn't think so.

 

[The T]

It's really just a cudgel you use to try to get your way.

The Constitution?

No, it's the law of the land.

The difference is that you of the left seek to be ruled by a strongman, who's word is law. Capricious and contradictory as it may be, whatever the ruler utters is the law of the moment.

We of the old republic prefer codified law, immutable and applicable to all. It's what the fight ultimately boils down to, your desire for rulers verses our desire for liberty under the law.

What you call support, I call hi-jacked. All your so-called "principles" are based on the myth that there was some sort of unanimous "intent" amongst The Founders, when even a cursory review of the subject proves that to be false.

I base my positions on the words of the document.

Indeed. The Congress and the POTUS are corrupt.

Enema is required in November.

 

[konradv]

I base my positions on the words of the document.

So does everybody else. It's your interpretation that's faulty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Indeed. The Congress and the POTUS are corrupt.

Enema is required in November.

Yes sir, with a fire hose.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So does everybody else. It's your interpretation that's faulty.

Because I don't accept your new definition of "is," no doubt....

Standard Disclaimer: You note that what I posted was not my interpretation, but directly from the United States Senate, right?

 

[konradv]

And the Congress doesn't have the balls to call him on this latest violation.

Had it been a Republican? There would be Hell to pay with the left immediately forming parties of whiners/wailers armed with torches and pitchforks calling for heads on a silver platter.

You mean like you're doing?

And had it happened? I'd call ANY POTUS on it.

What do you mean, "had it happened"? If this news to you, read up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What do you mean, "had it happened"? If this news to you, read up.

It has never happened before.

All prior appointments have been during actual recess periods. Obama is the first POTUS in history to use a recess appointment while congress is in session.

 

[konradv]

So does everybody else. It's your interpretation that's faulty.

Because I don't accept your new definition of "is," no doubt....

Standard Disclaimer: You note that what I posted was not my interpretation, but directly from the United States Senate, right?

The Senate rules on the Constitution now? Could we keep this one issue at a time?

 

[uscitizen]

Were some of the republicans in the house hanging around and talking just to prevent an official recess again?

a trick I hope the dems remember/use next time the roles are reversed.

 

[The T]

You mean like you're doing?

And had it happened? I'd call ANY POTUS on it.

What do you mean, "had it happened"? If this news to you, read up.

As I said...

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Senate rules on the Constitution now? Could we keep this one issue at a time?

The Senate details 230 years of precedent regarding what the rules of a recess are.

But laws and precedent mean nothing to Dear Leader, he rules by dictate. Apparently you support the rule by dictate, provided the dictator is a democrat.

You see, I wouldn't care if it was a dim, Republican or even a Libertarian - ANYONE flagrantly usurping the constitution would earn my ire. I railed against Bush over the Hamdi issue, where he violated the constitution, (Little did I know at the time that Obama would directly murder US Citizens, the concept of being held without trial outraged me - but the left thinks the murder of al-Awlaki is cool to the dims because there is no law constraining our dictator) and I rail against Obama for HIS violation of the law.

The difference is that you only care about party. Since Obama is a democrat, you will support any and all actions by him. The law means nothing, only service to the party.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Interesting.

Many people would say, understandably so, that Congress was playing a game with what constitutes being in session. Certainly, having a few members show up for a couple of minutes, long enough to bang a gavel a couple of times, can't really be considered to be a session of Congress, can it?

But there is a question that I would like answered by all these new defenders of everything constitutional and legal. Where was the outrage when it was revealed in December of 2005 that Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans in 2001 which had been going on for the last four years?

Bush defended it on the grounds that he needed to do it to protect us. Really? The FISA law had just been modified to give the gov't expanded rights to wiretap. Since FISA, no previous president from Carter through Bush 41 saw no need to violate the FISA law to help fight the Soviet Union's efforts to spy on America or recruit Americans to help them, and the Soviet Union was a FAR more powerful enemy than al Qaeda could ever dream of becoming.

 

[The T]

What do you mean, "had it happened"? If this news to you, read up.

It has never happened before.

All prior appointments have been during actual recess periods. Obama is the first POTUS in history to use a recess appointment while congress is in session.

Appointments to a NEW Bureaucracy to boot.

 

[konradv]

The Senate rules on the Constitution now? Could we keep this one issue at a time?

The Senate details 230 years of precedent regarding what the rules of a recess are...

...and who runs the Senate? You can't filibuster a non-action, so who's really responsible? Those who refuse to do their job, IMO. Got to start calling their bluff on filibusters, now. Who's going to care what a bunch of shirkers think, anyway? Is "up or down" vote only for the other guy, since we're digging up history?

 

[The T]

The Senate rules on the Constitution now? Could we keep this one issue at a time?

The Senate details 230 years of precedent regarding what the rules of a recess are...

...and who runs the Senate? You can't filibuster a non-action, so who's really responsible? Those who refuse to do their job, IMO. Got to start calling their bluff on filibusters, now. Who's going to care what a bunch of shirkers think, anyway? Is "up or down" vote only for the other guy, since we're digging up history?

The whole point is that Obama is making an appointment by FIAT to a new office bypassing the Constitutional Advice and Consent clause.

This shit is stuff we have seen coming from Hugo Chavez.