Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:11 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: recess appts. by obama Back to Topics
daylily2009

Champion Author
Fayetteville

Posts:2,368
Points:1,124,135
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 11:18:47 AM

The court in Washington has put the brakes on the great one!!!
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,181
Points:1,524,920
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 3:54:59 PM

"They" - who is this they your talking about? Do you mean folks like Harry Reid who went on the floor of the Senate adn accused a presidential candidate of being a felon and then not backing it up with anything but 'well I heard it from someone else'?

Maybe you mean the folks who physically locked teh oppositino party from teh rooms where a 2700 page bill was being written, refused to allow amendments or time to read it then 'deemed' it to have passed?

SGM both sides are guilty of playing games with the system and its way past time for both to stop.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 3:50:15 PM

"Well if the senate finds that the folks he chose are not acceptable - maybe he could work with the senate adn find some that are acceptable.... "

That sounds reasonable enough.

But what if you face an opposition party who is only satisfied with nominees that would by nominated by one of their own? Who think that anyone at all from the other side is "too" whatever? I think that's the kind of stonewalling approach the GOP confronts Obama with.

It's quite like the case of legislative proposals he puts forward that originated with Republicans, but when they are proposed by Obama, oh, for heaven's sake, we can't have that.

They are destroying the two-party system with their take-no-prisoners approach.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,181
Points:1,524,920
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 7:44:23 PM

Well if the senate finds that the folks he chose are not acceptable - maybe he could work with the senate adn find some that are acceptable....
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 6:21:15 PM

[L=http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/text deleted description of the opinion. [/L]stupid link builder.

[Edited by: sgm4law at 2/2/2013 6:22:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,665
Points:2,042,625
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 6:14:58 PM

michaelphoenix2 said: "What is a president supposed to do when congress lets departments go without heads for the entire 1st term of his presidency simply because they are throwing a hissy fit over the fact that they lost?"

Maybe he could divert his attention to the ones in his "winning" party and tell them to pass a budget like they are mandated to do!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,181
Points:1,524,920
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:54:44 PM

Regardless if you like what the Senate is doing or not the facts still are that only they can set their rules. The president has ZERO authority to set the rules for the Senate.

If enough of he people who hire the Senators dislike how they do thier job they have a chance to fire about a third of them every two years. At the end of six years everyt single one could be replaced by teh people who they are supposed to be responsible to. That is most definately not the President.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:43:02 PM

<<This same business of Senates not upholding their duty to confirm (or reject) Presidential appointments has gone on long enough. It was disgusting when the Democrats did it to GWBush, and it should not happen when the Republicans remain "in session" just to prevent the President from making recess appointments. The President would never have to make recess appointments if the Senate took up the matters in a prompt and timely fashion.>>

I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:12:44 PM

On what planet is refusing to take up an appointment for 4 years (the president's entire first term) even remotely close to timely and prompt?
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 12:33:07 PM

I75at7AM - "This same business of Senates not upholding their duty to confirm (or reject) Presidential appointments has gone on long enough."

Did you choose not to understand or is it because of your nature?

The Senate is composed of 100 people chosen to represent the citizens of this country in one part of Congress. It is up to them to decide how and when to do the work they have before them. A president has no business making up a false excuse to make recess appointments to bypass the Constitutional requirement that the Senate consider and approve or reject his nominations.

And it is not up to anyone else to decide what is timely and prompt. People are not going to force through any amendment because it would work to the disadvantage of the people and the State governments would not approve such foolishness.

Since you don't like the 22nd Amendment, I propose we change it: Give the president unlimited number of terms but with the restriction that the terms be separated from each other by a minimum of 4 years. Would you like that better?

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 2/2/2013 12:38:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Grizdad
Champion Author Montana

Posts:8,149
Points:1,194,270
Joined:Oct 2010
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 9:51:22 AM

Funny, was this in the mainstream media? Must of missed the coverage.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,848
Points:3,038,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 10:58:18 PM

This same business of Senates not upholding their duty to confirm (or reject) Presidential appointments has gone on long enough. It was disgusting when the Democrats did it to GWBush, and it should not happen when the Republicans remain "in session" just to prevent the President from making recess appointments. The President would never have to make recess appointments if the Senate took up the matters in a prompt and timely fashion.
So, BlackGum, if it takes the people forcing through and amendment to change the current practice, so be it. One branch might need reigned in more than the others from time to time. I would not object to Supreme Court Justices being subject to some sort of sunset on their terms on the Court. Either medical in nature, or simply old age, there is a time when some of them have overstayed and are not effective jurists. The nation deserves better.
Presidential power was reigned in, to an extent, with the 22nd limiting any person to being elected twice.
Congressional power has been eroded, with the War Powers Act largely giving the power to declare war to the President.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,181
Points:1,524,920
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 10:58:02 PM

SGM correct me if needed but I was under the impression that the Senate has the sole authority to set its rules as specified in the constitution. That includes saying when they are in session and when they are recessed.

Obama is the only president who has ignored this and said he will determine whe nthe senate is in session adn when it is recessed and that he reserves the right to make appointments that must be confirmed by the senate when he determines the senate is not in session.

As far as I know tht is unconstitutional and the court seems to agree.

Now if people want to amend the constitution to allow the president to set the rules of the Senate or the House feel free to do so. But until then the president does not have that authority IMHO.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,241
Points:2,412,775
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 9:54:44 PM

Should a Repub ever win the presidency again plan on Senate Dems doing the same thing and the people now justifying it condemning it.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 9:49:14 PM

<<I75 if you wish to change the Constitution to modify the rules of when the Senate is in session that is fine.>>

The "rules of when the Senate is in session" are not specified in the Constitution. Sorry.

full text of orig, version
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:34:21 PM

Fly, in another 8 or 12 years if cons win the White House hopefully these same rules will be in place.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:22:01 PM

I75at7AM - "The problem is when the Senate does, as sgm described, "pro forma sessions" to claim they are in session when in fact the body is obviously adjourned for a period of time.
Thus my suggestion that we may need to impose a definition on the Senate, via Constitutional Amendment, since they have done a poor job of keeping any rules themselves."

If you are going to impose rules on Congress, are you also going to impose rules on the Supreme Court and on the President?

Our forefathers thought about this and eventually came up with dividing the powers of government into three branches, each protected from the others. If any changes are to be made in the internal rules of any of the branches, it is up to that branch to make or change the rules that affect itself. These rules do not belong in the Constitution or embedded in any legislation.

The alleged "recess" appointments made by Obama are not valid because the Senate was not in recess. What Obama did was to violate the Constitution. What sense is there in changing the Constitution if it can be violated without consequence?

Obama must answer for his wrong doing.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,848
Points:3,038,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 12:56:46 PM

Fly, you are right. An amendment might be redundant, but redundancy is necessary when illiteracy reigns.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,181
Points:1,524,920
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 12:47:50 PM

I75 if you wish to change the Constitution to modify the rules of when the Senate is in session that is fine. But tht does not change the fact that Obama made unconstitutional appointments when the Senate was in session according to their rules and the Constitution.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,848
Points:3,038,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 7:55:43 AM

BlackGum: "Congress does have some rules about recesses: when it decides it is in recess, it is in recess and when it decides it is in session, it is in session. Got it? It's really quite simple."

The problem is when the Senate does, as sgm described, "pro forma sessions" to claim they are in session when in fact the body is obviously adjourned for a period of time.
Thus my suggestion that we may need to impose a definition on the Senate, via Constitutional Amendment, since they have done a poor job of keeping any rules themselves.

Another provision we could impose is that for a "session" to take place, the Senate must have a quorum to do business. If too many members are absent, there is no quorum, the day does not count as having been "in session". A quorum to do business should be at least half the current seated members present.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,181
Points:1,524,920
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 7:38:38 PM

Gocat it does not matter if what some Senators did was considered fair by some people or not. The Constitution clearly says that the Senate and House are they ONLY ones who can make rules for themselves.

The Senate rules said that they were still in session and Obama chose to ignore that fact and make appointments that were illegal. NO other president has ever done that.
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 7:36:30 PM

Gocat, "What goes around comes around?" Sure does, they all (on both sides) play the rules to suit their own reasoning... Both sides for a lot longer than this, any branch of the Govt...
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 7:30:07 PM

Cliff, "the congress never called a formal recess", Bingo.
Why, because cons wanted to make sure Obama would not be able to do what all presidents before him did. And as I guessed not one con admitted it was not fair. I hope from here on out No president will be able to make recess appointments. Had dems pulled this stunt after Reagan's 100th recess appointment there would have been outrage from the right.

What goes around comes around.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:649
Points:77,710
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:56:18 PM


It is about time.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:07:50 PM

<<The house has made it abundantly clear for many of these posts they wouldnt entertain ANY nominee regardless of qualifications.>>

Well, if it's the House, who cares what they think? The president needs the advice and consent of the Senate. It seems to be a violation of the separation of powers if they withhold consent without regard to the merits of a nominee but instead because they don't agree with the actions of the previous congress. That's what's wrong with refusing to allow anyone at all to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If they don't like the agency, they need to repeal the law that created it, rather than have a hissy fit when the president follows his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,241
Points:2,412,775
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 6:25:37 PM

Hopefully the Republican's fraudulent sham pro forma sessions will be ruled invalid by the SCOTUS.

[Edited by: worryfree at 1/28/2013 6:26:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,931
Points:322,565
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:26:49 PM

How is it that the House can "do the day's work" without a quorum present?
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:23:28 PM

Technically, I have to go along with the court. Congress was not technically in recess.

On the other hand, having a minority of angry, spoiled, selfish children keep EVERY appointee selected from serving seems to be a pretty shoddy way to run a country.

But then, that's the point, isn't it? Try to keep Obama from running the country, then complain when he doesn't.

Pathetic!

[Edited by: YDraigGoch at 1/28/2013 5:28:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:10:31 PM

Ok let me ask you this.... What is a president supposed to do when congress lets departments go without heads for the entire 1st term of his presidency simply because they are throwing a hissy fit over the fact that they lost? The house has made it abundantly clear for many of these posts they wouldnt entertain ANY nominee regardless of qualifications.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:00:00 PM

mudtoe is correct. The authority to decide when Congress is in session and when it is in recess resides exclusively with Congress.

I75at7AM, Congress does have some rules about recesses: when it decides it is in recess, it is in recess and when it decides it is in session, it is in session. Got it? It's really quite simple.

The problem with Obama is that he lacks leadership ability and divides the members of Congress instead of bringing them together to work on solutions which are acceptable to both sides. The results he gets are the result of what he does and doesn't do.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/28/2013 5:02:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:28:52 PM

"The House never called a formal recess.
They did not want Pres. Obama making any reces appointments so they had four of five congressmen show up each day.
The days work was completed in about fifteen minutes.
No actions/motions by the Democrats were allowed."

"The rest of the Republicans all went home for six weeks."

You could call it a Kangaroo Congress. But don't forget, the Democrats did it first, to stop George W. Bush from making recess appointments. He just didn't have to fight it in court.

It's a disgrace when either party does it.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,641
Points:2,861,230
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:28:30 PM

>>gocatgo, I see you are mistaken again. Congress was NOT in recess so the president is not allowed to make recess appointments if Congress is not in recess. Do you see how logical that is? The appointments Obama made were clearly illegal.<<

Seems logical and simple to me. The court agreed.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:55:46 PM

I75: "...we might need a Constitutional Amendment defining what a Congressional recess is."



Since Congress would never start a Constitutional Amendment which would limit their power, that leaves only a Constitutional Convention as the route by which such a measure could be enacted. It is one of my dearest wishes that the states would call a Convention, because at a Convention each state gets the same vote regardless of population, meaning that the red states would dominate. Also, once a Convention is called there is no limit on the subject matter or on the number of Amendments which could be proposed or enacted. However, the chances of that happening, especially over this, are basically nil.



mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/28/2013 2:57:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,848
Points:3,038,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:51:58 PM

Mud, if Congresses decide to prevent any president from making any recess appointments by being perpetually in session, we might need a Constitutional Amendment defining what a Congressional recess is. We the People could impose on our Congress the rule that "Congress shall stand in recess at least twice each calendar for a period of at least seven calendar days, during which no legislative business can be addressed. One such period shall occur near the end of the calendar year, and the other during the summer months."

You could make it "five" days instead of seven, but define the term so that our representatives can travel back to their districts to commune with the people.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:35:21 PM

I believe the Constitution gives the authority to define what it means to be in session to Congress itself. Whatever rules they make in this regard, no matter if they are strictly intended to prevent the President from making recess appointments, are not reviewable or challengeable by either the Executive or Judicial branches of government.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/28/2013 2:36:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,775
Points:4,585,905
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:35:18 PM

Cliffisher, "The Republicans did something last fall that had never been done before."

You got that wrong. Obama did something that no president has ever done before, declare Congress in recess even though it was not. If the Senate doesn't get to decide when it is in recess, who does? Can the president decide the Congress is in recess when they take a lunch break?

No, Congress gets to decide if they are in recess or not.

gocatgo, I see you are mistaken again. Congress was NOT in recess so the president is not allowed to make recess appointments if Congress is not in recess. Do you see how logical that is? The appointments Obama made were clearly illegal.

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 1/28/2013 2:38:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,848
Points:3,038,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:25:27 PM

Me thinks that Congress needs some rules about recesses, and then should follow it's rules. How about this:
Congress shall be deemed to be "in recess" if no regular sessions are planned, including no committee meetings, for a period of seven days or more?

You could set the number of days at five, or four, or whatever. This would preclude any president from making a recess appointment on an average weekend, or on a (very numerous) three-day weekend. It would also preclude Congress from declaring itself "in session" when the extent of the day's business is to have three members show up, say a couple of words, then dismiss for the day. If no real business is to be considered, that day is not a day in session.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,264
Points:3,728,525
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:07:37 PM

The Republicans did something last fall that had never been done before.

The House never called a formal recess.
They did not want Pres. Obama making any reces appointments so they had four of five congressmen show up each day.
The days work was completed in about fifteen minutes.
No actions/motions by the Democrats were allowed.

The rest of the Republicans all went home for six weeks.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:24:27 PM

The attempted appointments by Obama were NOT recess appointments; they were illegal. Congress was not in recess when Obama made these illegal appointments.

Whether any appointments made by Presidents of previous administrations were illegal appointments made when Congress was not in recess was not determined and ruled on by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that only Congress can decide when it is in recess.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/28/2013 1:26:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:16:32 PM

gocat: "The arguments by cons against Obama will be interesting when looking at the above numbers. "


The difference is that none of the above President's made those appointments when the Senate was still in Pro-forma session.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:13:33 PM

Recess Appointments:
Ronald Reagan 240
George H W Bush 77
Clinton 139
George W Bush 171 which included John Bolton as UN Ambassador.
Barrack Obama 29

The arguments by cons against Obama will be interesting when looking at the above numbers. I can't wait to hear cons say they were for recess appointments before they were against them.

I'm sure this will go to the Supreme Court especially with a 2 century history of recess appointments on the side of the President.
Post a reply Back to Topics