Invalid Congressional Session? LOLWUT?

[stebo0728]

Ok, so I cant wait to hear IB's take on Prezbo's latest shenanigan. If the constitution clearly states that Congress has the rights to set its own rules regarding recess and in-session, then how can the Executive say ANYTHING or have ANY jurisdiction over this matter? I've long believed Prezbo has a disdain for the constitution, the mandate went a long way toward showing that, but now this? I would argue his recess appointments made using this tactic are invalid, and any proclamations or rulings made by said individuals will hold no legality when challenged judicially.

[themadscientist]

link to story? Are you speaking of the recent recess appointment?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... _blog.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 94692.html

[telcoman]

No more Mr. nice guy.

The republicans are toast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/po ... ml?_r=1&hp

Telcoman

[themadscientist]

Funny how he took a stand against recess appointments when he was a senator, but thinks they are fine as prez. More two face BS exposed.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... is-now.php

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’ “‘It’s the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee.” (“Officials: White House To Bypass Congress For Bolton Nomination,” The Associated Press, 7/30/05)

· OBAMA: A recess appointee is ‘damaged goods… we will have less credibility.’ “To some degree, he’s damaged goods… somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

Toast? I don't think so. Against Obama a wet noodle could have a chance.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ial_ballot

A generic Republican candidate now holds a four-point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup.

Say it with me, "generic." That's not even a real person. That's an ambiguous figure who's only discernible characteristic is he isn't Obama.

Hey, but don't listen to me, listen to Obama. He has already predicted his failure.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRAMdUNo2Cg[/youtube]

[telcoman]

The peoples business needs to be conducted in spite of a do nothing Congress

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opini ... te.html?hp

Nancy Pelosi in a recent speech earlier today mentioned that congress will only be in session 5 days during the month of January
The Republican led house spent more time on abortion this past year than jobs. What a bunch of losers.
At least we have a president that is a leader despite a bunch of do nothings in congress whose only goal is to atempt to make Obama a one term president.
They are going to lose that battle

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

Yes sorry for the lack of posting links. The recess appointments were what I was getting at.

Now let me say, I dont necessarily agree with the tactics Congress employs to block recess appointments, but BOTH sides have employed this tactic, and each side thinks they are ok when they are the ones blocking an appointment, then they hate the tactics when they are trying to make an appointment. But my point is not so much the block, but the fact that Mr. Obama finds it completely tenable to circumvent the Constitution and jack control of congressional session validity? Thats where my beef is with Obama. And yeah, he wasnt complaining when his senate was doing the same thing to Bushie. I think this tactic from Prezbo only solidifies the position that he disdains the constitution, that he wishes he could just move it out of the way and be "benevolent" for 4 or 8 years.

Now, as for recess appointments, I believe they are abused as well, again by BOTH sides. They are used to sneak in otherwise unpassable candidates. The whole reason they are allowed for dates back to times when we had to summon congress via pony express, and they had to convene via horse and buggie, as soon as the snow melts. Times when it may take months to get congress in session, months a critical appointment may not be able to wait for. It made sense then. It doesnt make sense now. Granted, there still may be a perfect storm scenario where a recess appointment may be NECESSARY, but primarily congress can be rallied fairly quickly these days. Heck, if they cant now, I'd be all for giving them ability to to convene in cyberspace, considering security measures and vote confirmations are worked in. Gotta be sure Mr. Senator was really the one who cast the vote, not some militant holding him hostage in his wine cellar

So now I present the question again, in a judicial challenge, would these appointments hold water, would rulings made by invalid appointees be held as valid rulings? I think an argument could be made against their validity.

[stebo0728]

Toast? I don't think so. Against Obama a wet noodle could have a chance.

This.

And this is why my support for Ron Paul has increased recently. I've always like his policies, jut never considered him electable. But if ever such a time existed when Ron Paul would be electable, that time is now. I dont think Im the only one thinking that way either, seeing his recent surge, his success in Iowa, but time will tell.

[telcoman]

Well maybe he will be the last man standing but he is no match for President Obama

This one should be gone soon

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 8242.story

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability. ... nerID=1660

http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/

Telcoman

[themadscientist]

I'm a Paul supporter, but believe Romney is more acceptable to a larger group of voters. Obama is a non-issue. He's ensured his usurpation in November to such a degree whoever is nominated on the Republican ticket will beat him.

I'm just glad the right didn't pick Obama's right wing equivalent, Bachmann. I was really concerned that kook would get traction. Next they must marginalize Gingrich because he is dirty and would be another mistake of a presidency.

[stebo0728]

I dont have as big of a problem with Gingrich, but I agree he should not be president, he's more suited in a supportive role. Romney I just have problems getting on board with, mainly his liberal tendancies, but I do aknowledge those tendancies were likely a necessity due to his governance of a liberal state. Still he would be better than Obama.

I hope telco isn't too butthurt when Obama is able to put his Che Guevara shirt back on.

[themadscientist]

No worries. He already has a list of reasons warming up in the bullpen for BO's impending loss. He's as predictable as the last five minutes of an M. Night Shamylan movie, but somewhat more entertaining at least.

Romney appeals more to independents and no matter how much the left and right wings talk down to us, in the end, they can't win without us. The Republicans are going to need to get real and realize that Santorum may be a more attractive candidate to the social conservative wing of the party within a Republican primary, but his evangelical social focus is not the answer to the question at hand, the economy and thus a detriment in the general election. Luckily Obama is so stunningly bad he can still win despite this.

I predict he will be offered second place on a Romney ticket.

[stebo0728]

I favor Romney over Santorum anyday. They are both religious, but Romney doesnt wear it on his sleeve like Santorum does. And I dont even want to see Santorum in the VP slot to be honest. I think Rubeo is still the best bet for VP.

[themadscientist]

I've thought of him as well. I am curious if Obamalamadingdong will dump Biden for this "4 more years of this s***" tour.

[stebo0728]

I cant wait to use this "congress isnt in a valid session" excuse to get Anne Coulter onto the Supreme Court!

[bigbadberry3]

[themadscientist]

Coulter is a disrespectful right wing shrew that should have her vagina rooted out before she reproduces.

If we could figure out a way to suspend her in a magnetic field next to Arianna Huffington and control how much contact they came into we could harness the power of countervailing s*** eradicating itself to power the east coast.

[szh]

I've thought of him as well. I am curious if Obamalamadingdong will dump Biden for this "4 more years of this s***" tour.

He may pick Hilary Clinton - that might increase his winning chances.

Z

[szh]

link to story? Are you speaking of the recent recess appointment?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... _blog.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 94692.html

He has done it before - no surprise.

We discussed it then too: post5694880.html

And, he has taken a back-handed slap to Republicans before too: just-delightful-non-session-appointees-t485999.html

Z

[szh]

No more Mr. nice guy.

"Nice guy"? Yeah, right.

Better to say: "Untrustworthy guy".

Z

[szh]

Coulter is a disrespectful right wing shrew that should have her vagina rooted out before she reproduces.

If we could figure out a way to suspend her in a magnetic field next to Arianna Huffington and control how much contact they came into we could harness the power of countervailing bullsh*t eradicating itself to power the east coast.

Proton and anti-proton cancelling each other out - releasing lots of energy! I like it!

Z

[IBCoupe]

Didn't want to resurrect a dead thread, but since you were looking for my input anyways:

If the constitution clearly states that Congress has the rights to set its own rules regarding recess and in-session, then how can the Executive say ANYTHING or have ANY jurisdiction over this matter?

Can you point to that clear language? Or the Senate's rules regarding the definition of "recess?"

The President's jurisdiction comes from Article II, which says that whenever a vacancy arises while the Senate is in recess, he may forego the advise-and-consent provisions of the appointments clause, and fill the vacancy for a duration not to exceed the end of the Senate's next term.

I've long believed Prezbo has a disdain for the constitution,

...even though he taught Constitutional law...

...the mandate went a long way toward showing that, but now this?

...even though it's clearly constitutional...

I would argue his recess appointments made using this tactic are invalid, and any proclamations or rulings made by said individuals will hold no legality when challenged judicially.

I'm sure you and whichever bank faces some kind of action from this administration would agree, but I'm pretty sure you'd both be wrong. The likelihood that the Court's going to touch this is slim - the Constitution is silent on the definition of "recess," much in the same way that it's silent on the definition of everything.

The only basis for thinking that a recess does not exist when the Senate leaves for three days before returning for a one-minute session before leaving for three days again is because of a Clinton-era Justice Department memo. Not a holding. Not a Senate definition.

[stebo0728]

Article II allows for recess appointments DURING a RECESS only. It does not give the executive ANY jurisdiction to decide what is and is not a recess, only Congress has that power. Id also like to point out that Mr. Berry was all in favor of these "fake" sessions during his very short stint in the Senate. Id also like to point out that legislation was handled during one of these "fake" sessions. Mr. Berry is the FIRST president to ever overstep constitutional bounds in this matter. Sure lots of presidents have made recess appointments, but they have all been during a time when Congress considered itself in recess. Another tidbit, Mr. Berry proceeded with his actions BEFORE, TWO DAYS BEFORE any opinion was published by his own justice department. When said opinion was published, it was first AGAINST his action, which was quickly doublestepped over and changed to FOR. The point is, he had no right to do what he did, and it sets a terrible precedent. Look at the people he appointed and you'll see why he had to do this. I believe this upcoming election is CRITICAL, perhaps one of the moreso of our day, if not our history. You'll soon see in another 4 years what "fundamentally changing" our nation means to Mr. Berry.

We can argue all day on constitutionality of the mandate, as we have, and honestly it comes down to interpretation, I doubt either of us will convince the other on this matter.

And Mr. Berry having taught congressional law means nothing. In fact, knowing the constitution gives you all the more ability to abridge it and to detest it. I never said he didnt KNOW it, I said he disdains it.

[IBCoupe]

Article II allows for recess appointments DURING a RECESS only. It does not give the executive ANY jurisdiction to decide what is and is not a recess, only Congress has that power.

As interpreting the word "recess" would mean interpreting the Constitution, the only branch of the government to affirmatively say that what is and is not a recess is the Court. Congress may freely interpret the Constitution in making law, but in executing his Article II duties, the President also must interpret the Constitution to figure out, at least what those duties entail.

There is no definition of "recess," the Senate never provided one, and even if they did, they might be wrong.

When said opinion was published, it was first AGAINST his action, which was quickly doublestepped over and changed to FOR.

[citation needed]

Look at the people he appointed and you'll see why he had to do this.

...You mean Richard Cordray, former Attorney General of Ohio, whose actual appointment was entirely uncontroversial? The only thing controversial to Republicans was the position he was being appointed to, and if Congress wanted to get rid of that, they absolutely have that authority.

[IBCoupe]

And, gorrammit, Stebo, it's "Mr. Obama" or "The President" or "President Obama."

[themadscientist]

I look forward to referring to him as the citizen formerly known as president next year.

[IBCoupe]

Heh, okay.