Court puts doubt on president’s appointments in recess

[Jroc]

They were meeting

the Senate was meeting every third day, specifically to deny him the chance to make appointments.

No, they were not meeting. A couple of people would show up for about 30 seconds. Just long enough to pound a gavel and immediately adjourn.

Please explain how that meets the Constitutional requirement of the Senate to "advise and consent".

.

See post # 18

 

[The Rabbi]

They were meeting

the Senate was meeting every third day, specifically to deny him the chance to make appointments.

No, they were not meeting. A couple of people would show up for about 30 seconds. Just long enough to pound a gavel and immediately adjourn.

Please explain how that meets the Constitutional requirement of the Senate to "advise and consent".

.

They were either meeting or not. There must be a motion passed to adjourn. There was not. Therefore they were in session and the appointments were invalid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Would it be asking too much to just wait until the court makes its ruling? Anything before then is mere speculation which is nothing more than an excuse to vent.

Sure would be.

The very first order from the Left is "be quiet! No opposition voices allowed!!"


Your version: "No mere speculation allowed!"

Y'all are just gonna work yourselves up into a tizzy over nuthin' again.

You seem to be very good at that. Doesn't the stress of always being angry and frightened wear on you after awhile?

I'm hardly ever angry.....although I'm not pleased about the NHL lockout.


You've revealed an inability in judgment...

...but a strong ability to fantasize.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm the NHL players are unionized right?
So why do rightwingers patronize them?

 

[g5000]

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. 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."

good luck with that

Obama can't declare congress in recess

You have to excuse Del. She isn't terribly bright. That's why she can't post more than two sentences.

Anyway, only the respective houses can declare themselves in recess. And Obama is in a Catch-22. If they were in recess, then the legislation they passed and he signed is invalid. If they were not in recess, then his appointments are unconstitutional.

With any luck Chief Justice Roberts will get his head out of his ass for this one.

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama can't declare congress in recess

You have to excuse Del. She isn't terribly bright. That's why she can't post more than two sentences.

Anyway, only the respective houses can declare themselves in recess. And Obama is in a Catch-22. If they were in recess, then the legislation they passed and he signed is invalid. If they were not in recess, then his appointments are unconstitutional.

With any luck Chief Justice Roberts will get his head out of his ass for this one.

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

So if they weren't in session how did they pass legislation? And when did they have a motion to adjourn?

 

[g5000]

You have to excuse Del. She isn't terribly bright. That's why she can't post more than two sentences.

Anyway, only the respective houses can declare themselves in recess. And Obama is in a Catch-22. If they were in recess, then the legislation they passed and he signed is invalid. If they were not in recess, then his appointments are unconstitutional.

With any luck Chief Justice Roberts will get his head out of his ass for this one.

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

So if they weren't in session how did they pass legislation? And when did they have a motion to adjourn?

They did not pass legislation during the 30 second sessions, idiot!



And where did you ever get the dimwitted idea the President cannot sign legislation during a recess?


This is about the Senate recess appointments.

You are very confused about the different roles of the House and Senate.

.

 

[g5000]

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.


.

 

[g5000]

They were meeting

No, they were not meeting. A couple of people would show up for about 30 seconds. Just long enough to pound a gavel and immediately adjourn.

Please explain how that meets the Constitutional requirement of the Senate to "advise and consent".

.

They were either meeting or not. There must be a motion passed to adjourn. There was not. Therefore they were in session and the appointments were invalid.

There were motions passed to adjourn.

You are speaking out of your ass about something of which you know nothing.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Umm the NHL players are unionized right?
So why do rightwingers patronize them?

Are you speaking to me?


If so, be advised, I've posted several times that I am not opposed to unions, and, in fact, pointed out that the Constitution's freedom of assembly covers same.


Ranger Blue runs in these veins.

 

[g5000]

The Senate Republicans were holding pro forma sessions every three days. A few people would show up, open the Senate, then immediately adjourn.

This stupid little game was intended by the GOP to mean the Senate was not in recess as long as a couple warm bodies met at least once every three days.

However, it is impossible for the Senate to conduct any business during a pro forma session, and so it is not possible for them to meet their Constitutional requirements of advising and consenting the President in his appointments.

So for all intents and Constitutional purposes, they were in recess.

.

 

[Too Tall]

Obama can't declare congress in recess

You have to excuse Del. She isn't terribly bright. That's why she can't post more than two sentences.

Anyway, only the respective houses can declare themselves in recess. And Obama is in a Catch-22. If they were in recess, then the legislation they passed and he signed is invalid. If they were not in recess, then his appointments are unconstitutional.

With any luck Chief Justice Roberts will get his head out of his ass for this one.

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

I believe the Senate can be in session without a quorum being present. Since a quorum was NOT present, they couldn't have a vote to recess, hence they were still in session.

 

[Jroc]

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

So if they weren't in session how did they pass legislation? And when did they have a motion to adjourn?

They did not pass legislation during the 30 second sessions, idiot!



And where did you ever get the dimwitted idea the President cannot sign legislation during a recess?


This is about the Senate recess appointments.

You are very confused about the different roles of the House and Senate.

.

Both bodies haft too agree to recess for either to be in recess.. Get it moron?

 

[Too Tall]

The Senate Republicans were holding pro forma sessions every three days. A few people would show up, open the Senate, then immediately adjourn.

This stupid little game was intended by the GOP to mean the Senate was not in recess as long as a couple warm bodies met at least once every three days.

However, it is impossible for the Senate to conduct any business during a pro forma session, and so it is not possible for them to meet their Constitutional requirements of advising and consenting the President in his appointments.

So for all intents and Constitutional purposes, they were in recess.

.

The Senate Majority Leader schedules pro forma sessions, and he is a Democrat.

 

[g5000]

You have to excuse Del. She isn't terribly bright. That's why she can't post more than two sentences.

Anyway, only the respective houses can declare themselves in recess. And Obama is in a Catch-22. If they were in recess, then the legislation they passed and he signed is invalid. If they were not in recess, then his appointments are unconstitutional.

With any luck Chief Justice Roberts will get his head out of his ass for this one.

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

I believe the Senate can be in session without a quorum being present. Since a quorum was NOT present, they couldn't have a vote to recess, hence they were still in session.

No. They actually adjourn until three days hence. The actual language used is an adjournment.

This is to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that they cannot adjourn FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS without the consent of the other body.

They do adjourn. Just not for more than three days.



.

 

[g5000]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-11-09/pdf/CREC-2012-11-09-senate.pdf

That is a Senate record of a pro forma session on November 9.

Note the words:

Under the previous order, the
Senate stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 13, 2012.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 10 o’clock
and 36 seconds a.m., adjourned until
Tuesday, November 13, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Note they opened at "10 and 03 seconds" and were adjourned by "10 o’clock and 36 seconds".

Now explain how they could advise and consent in that 33 second period.

.


.

 

[Too Tall]

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

So if they weren't in session how did they pass legislation? And when did they have a motion to adjourn?

They did not pass legislation during the 30 second sessions, idiot!



And where did you ever get the dimwitted idea the President cannot sign legislation during a recess?


This is about the Senate recess appointments.

You are very confused about the different roles of the House and Senate.

.

The Senate doesn't make recess appointments, the President does when the Senate is in recess. I know who is confused!

 

[g5000]

So if they weren't in session how did they pass legislation? And when did they have a motion to adjourn?

They did not pass legislation during the 30 second sessions, idiot!



And where did you ever get the dimwitted idea the President cannot sign legislation during a recess?


This is about the Senate recess appointments.

You are very confused about the different roles of the House and Senate.

.

The Senate doesn't make recess appointments, the President does when the Senate is in recess. I know who is confused!

The Senate was in recess. That is a Senate recess. The President made an appointment during the Senate recess.

That is a Senate recess appointment, dipshit.

.

 

[g5000]

33 seconds.

33.

Seconds.


They cannot meet their Constitutional obligations of any kind.



Recess.


This childish tactic is so going to come back and blow up in the GOP's face one day, at the most painfully possible moment.



.

 

[Too Tall]

This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.


.

I believe the Senate can be in session without a quorum being present. Since a quorum was NOT present, they couldn't have a vote to recess, hence they were still in session.

No. They actually adjourn until three days hence. The actual language used is an adjournment.

This is to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that they cannot adjourn FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS without the consent of the other body.

They do adjourn. Just not for more than three days.



.

Nope!

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.

The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting “pro forma” sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly “pro forma” session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”

The Senate adjourns at the close of business every day. That does not mean they are in recess.
Obama?s recess appointments are unconstitutional - Washington Post