WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' In Making Recess Appointment During Senate Session

Discussion in 'Politics' started by paulitician, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Anyone still think the Liberal Press is credible and independent?


    Nakamura and Sonmez waited until the 10th paragraph in their 33-paragraph page A1 story to get to the Republican side of the argument, that "precedent, over the past two decades, has been that no president can make such an appointment during a recess of less than 10 days."

    Nakamura and Sonmez omitted, however, that the actual minimal threshold of inactivity to constitute a Senate "recess" has been considered, since the days of the Clinton Department of Justice, a length of at least three days.

    From "frequently asked questions" brief published on December 12, 2011 by Henry Hogue of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (emphases mine):

    The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days. In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This “Adjournments Clause” provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ....” Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated:

    If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senate’s ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. ... It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant. …

    Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.

    The logic of the argument laid out in this brief appears to underlie congressional practices, intended to block recess appointments, that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.

    In other words, President Obama is pushing the limits of his executive recess appointment-making authority even further than the Clinton administration dreamed possible.



    Read more: WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' in Making Recess Appointment While Senate's Still In Session | NewsBusters.org
     
  2. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,171
    Thanks Received:
    19,801
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,260
    Good work by Obama

    It is long overdue that he start showing leadership. He has executive powers, let him use them

    If Republicans object, let them make it an issue in the upcoming campaign
     
  3. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,708
    Thanks Received:
    4,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,627
    You could catch Barry picking his nose and the Wash Post would call it a "bold act". What else is new.
     
  4. occupied
    Online

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,358
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,713
    Republicans are going to discover much too late just how popular this action was and just how dirty and bought off they look fighting it. When congress comes back they are going to look like shameless banker puppets proclaiming their false outrage to a public that knows all to well that banks are never to be trusted.
     
  5. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    You mean the Wall Street Bankers who overwhelmingly support Barack Obama? Those Bankers?

    Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough:

    Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

    In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.


    Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough - Yahoo! News
     
  6. occupied
    Online

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,358
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,713
    And yet he is enacting legislation they hate, boy did they get screwed.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,171
    Thanks Received:
    19,801
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,260
    Here is a great idea

    When the Republicans come back, why don't they file for impeachment?
     
  8. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,558
    Thanks Received:
    3,009
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,621
    Come on Paul.

    Campaign money from Wall St bankers is good as long as its going to Barry.
     
  9. occupied
    Online

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,358
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,713
    LOL, we can only hope.
     
  10. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Just another scam. These things are done to appease the ignorant sheep. Barack Obama is just an employee. He knows who is real bosses are. And it aint the American People. Just take a close look at how much money he receives from Wall Street and especially from Banks. It dwarfs what George Bush and John McCain received.
     

Share This Page