Barack Obama Violates the Constitution

[CowboyBob]

the big deal is that the President made the recess appointment during a pro forma session of the Senate...

"pro forma" = for the sake of form = fake = false

If they were having fake sessions... a few minutes a few days apart... they weren't real meetings. It's all bullshit.

It's yet another pathetic attempt for the right wing to discredit the President.

[loki81]

"pro forma" = for the sake of form = fake = false

If they were having fake sessions... a few minutes a few days apart... they weren't real meetings. It's all bullshit.

It's yet another pathetic attempt for the right wing to discredit the President.

Harry Reid is part of the vast right wing conspiracy? he's the one who started this tactic.

you can agree or disagree with the concept entirely, but it's a joke to blame Republicans for a tactic that Democrats invented.

[GiancarloC]

They weren't real sessions, loki. Nobody is saying not to blame democrats or republicans... that's not the issue here. The issue is whether Obama violated the constitution or law, which he clearly did not.

[CowboyBob]

Harry Reid is part of the vast right wing conspiracy? he's the one who started this tactic.

you can agree or disagree with the concept entirely, but it's a joke to blame Republicans for a tactic that Democrats invented.

Is there any way to explain this so you'll understand?..... here I'll try.....

You can blame the republicans for making a big deal out of this with their "pro forma" meetings when this (recess appointments) have been done for 90 years as mentioned in the article. Wasn't aware Harry Reid was that old.

If you don't think republicans are out to discredit the President then there's no hope. I believe they will try to do what they did to Clinton in his second term.

[xbuzzerx]

Harry Reid is part of the vast right wing conspiracy? he's the one who started this tactic.

you can agree or disagree with the concept entirely, but it's a joke to blame Republicans for a tactic that Democrats invented.

Loki why do you even enter or make these sweeping claims about political history when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about?

[GiancarloC]

Loki why do you even enter or make these sweeping claims about political history when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about?

I agree with this. I don't see any proof for any of his claims. I guess it's more of the same faux neutrality.

[loki81]

Loki why do you even enter or make these sweeping claims about political history when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about?

what's a sweeping claim? Harry Reid was the first person to keep Congress in a pro forma session to (successfully) prevent GWB from making recess appointments.

“This is the first time that pro formas have been used to block recess appointments,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/wa.../21recess.html

[GiancarloC]

Loki, that's still not about now. The argument "oh the dems do it too" isn't helping the faux neutrality case. It's a false equivalency actually and a total logical fallacy. This is about appointments that were supposed to benefit the people as consumers. The republicans have their heads up the asses of big business so they bitterly opposed it in such a partisan fashion. Lets stick to the facts.

[loki81]

This, Loki.

It's the same thing with other topics--- like Republicans defend that their Congress has filibustered Obama 270 times with "um well oh erm, DEMS DID IT TOO, they held up the emergency war funding for Iraq for like... a couple days before giving in.."

There is not equivalency between the two parties and everyone who insists there is is only ever really trying to justify Republican partisan behavior.

I don't think it's justifying a false equivalency to try and refute the claim that using a pro forma session is some kind of dastardly Republican tactic when it was Democrats who started it.

on the specific merits of these exact nominations, sure, I'm glad they got appointed to their seats and I'm glad the President was able to find a maybe-legal way around the confirmation process. but on the broad level, giving the President this constitutional power now is also giving it to whoever the People of Walmart elect next.

[GiancarloC]

Thanks for demonstrating the same old argument based on logical errors. It is a definite false equivalency. And it's nice trying to be cynical but at least have an understanding of the history around it. And that's nice we are now insulting voters. Keep it up.

[Tengilethos]

It is interesting to me as a foreigner what occupies the Americans in this thread.

Obama made recess appointments of questioning legality. The Senate was technically not in recess, although it is possible that pro-forma sessions without quorum can be seen as the Senate being in recess, since the Senate could not fulfill it's duty to advise and consent regarding the President's nominees. To me it is not obvious which side has the better legal argument, but the Supreme Court will decide this so let's wait and see.

Regarding the morality of these pro-forma sessions: They were not right when the Democrats used them, and they were not right when the Republicans used them.

But why is the fact that the court held intra-session recess appointments as illegal not a bigger issue here? With the practical elimination of inter-session recesses, this basically nullifies the recess appointment power of the President as laid out in the constitution, and invalidates a practices that has seen heavy use for at least 6 decades. This ruling would make the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. illegal. George Bush had over 100 recess appointments, all illegal if this ruling stands. Will all of their actions be invalidated as well? All executive decisions? All convictions in cases where a judge or judges had been a recess appointment?

I'm curious why this is barely worth a mention when this has possibly so far reaching consequences.

[GiancarloC]

On that note, the decision will most likely be appealed and not hold up in any other court. The court ruling was silly and ridiculous as it can potentially undermine the authority of the executive branch.

[JayHawk]

Opi it appears while I said that the judges we're legislating from the bench just to infuriate, I end up actually being correct.

For those of you outside of the US find it confusing definitely read this article so it can explain in detail why this is a subjugation of the power of both our Senate and president.

Posting from my phone so links are a bitch. Go to Slate. Com and search for "Senate democracy is dead"

[Jack Springer]

The Senate was in recess and Obama did not follow the law. A US President is only able to make recess appointments if the Senate is not in session. The appointments are not permanent either -- the are only for a limited time.

Other US Presidents have made recess appointments but they have done it when the Senate was in recess.

It's not sure yet if the decisions made by his appointments can still be upheld. Since this was a court case it may well go to the Supreme Court -- they will probably make a decision soon whether they want to rule on this or not.

The USA has 3 branches of government -- a check-and-balances system between the three branches.

It is interesting to me as a foreigner what occupies the Americans in this thread.

Obama made recess appointments of questioning legality. The Senate was technically not in recess, although it is possible that pro-forma sessions without quorum can be seen as the Senate being in recess, since the Senate could not fulfill it's duty to advise and consent regarding the President's nominees. To me it is not obvious which side has the better legal argument, but the Supreme Court will decide this so let's wait and see.

Regarding the morality of these pro-forma sessions: They were not right when the Democrats used them, and they were not right when the Republicans used them.

But why is the fact that the court held intra-session recess appointments as illegal not a bigger issue here? With the practical elimination of inter-session recesses, this basically nullifies the recess appointment power of the President as laid out in the constitution, and invalidates a practices that has seen heavy use for at least 6 decades. This ruling would make the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. illegal. George Bush had over 100 recess appointments, all illegal if this ruling stands. Will all of their actions be invalidated as well? All executive decisions? All convictions in cases where a judge or judges had been a recess appointment?

I'm curious why this is barely worth a mention when this has possibly so far reaching consequences.

[tigerfan482]

The Senate was in recess and Obama did not follow the law. A US President is only able to make recess appointments if the Senate is not in session. The appointments are not permanent either -- the are only for a limited time.

It's hard to make that claim. The Constitution doesn't define what constitutes a Senate recess. The only thing that has been used in the past are legal opinions from the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is or is not Constitutional, so we'll have to wait and see what they say. I think a good argument can be made that pro forma sessions unconstitutionally inhibit powers granted to the executive branch.

[JayHawk]

Here is that article I bfirefly mentioned above. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...of_senate.html

It is an interesting read as the SCOTUS has already ruled on WHO has standing to demand that something done was action taken illegally. The minority party in the Senate IS NOT the legal voice of that body and therefore is not able to demand a case be heard. Niether is a disgruntled corporation who seeks to invalidate the Labor board rulings.

A key 1997 Supreme Court case, Byrd v. Raines, says that only a majority of senators have proper standing in court to complain of presidential actions violating the rights of the Senate. Why should a private party—in this case, a bottling company being regulated by the National Labor Relations Board, which has three members appointed by Obama in January 2012—have standing to raise the rights of the Senate itself?

Since the Court overstepped its bounds by making a ruling (primarily because each of them were republican appointees), then it goes without saying that the SCOTUS and a Chief Justice Roberts who is loath to overturn precedent will decide that the DC Circuit failed in its judgement.

The article is mostly about inept Democratic Senatorial Leadership for those of you biologically wired to not disagree with republicans -- ever. So have a read... most of it will make you smile and hate Harry Reid even more than many left wingers do now...

Cheers.

[opinterph]

Opi it appears while I said that the judges we're legislating from the bench just to infuriate, I end up actually being correct.

I think you may be on to something.

Compare the ruling to the amicus brief filed by Senate Republicans.

Brief for Amici Curiae Senate Republican Leader Mitch Mcconnell and 41 Other Members of the United States Senate in Support of Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Noel Canning

[JayHawk]

Well I dont know that I am on to something... but I know a guy who writes articles I read on the internets and he is on to something... lol.

I suppose we will see. I have also read (again on Slate) that the Senate rules although they did not reform the filibuster they have made it much easier to confirm appointees. So hopefully Obama can simply nominate them again and let the legal fight play out while our departments of government actually have the folks appointed to operate.

It is remarkable that republicans get folks to buy stories about massive inept abilities of the government all the while hamstringing effective use of assets. Democrats are no better because if they would be in the minority they would pass the same scurrilous poltical bull pucky.

[GiancarloC]

The Senate was in recess and Obama did not follow the law. A US President is only able to make recess appointments if the Senate is not in session. The appointments are not permanent either -- the are only for a limited time.

The Senate wasn't in session and 2 minute meetings a day don't count as sessions. Obama did follow the law. Stop making the ridiculous claim he violated the law or the constitution. I haven't seen one shred of proof for that.