Log Out
Visit Patriot 8888's column >>

PATRIOT 8888

My Haters are my Motivators (E. DeGeneres)
Articles Posted: 15  Links Seeded: 2433
Member Since: 3/2010  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

Another Wrinkle in Obama's Recess Appointments

Seeded on Thu Jan 5, 2012 12:05 PM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: Wall Street Journal
, , , , , , , , , , ,
Seeded by Patriot 8888
Advertise | AdChoices

A President has the power to make a recess appointment, and we’ve supported Mr. Obama’s right to do so. The Constitutional catch is that Congress must be in recess.

The last clause of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution says that “Neither House” of Congress can adjourn for more than three days “without the Consent of the other” house. In this case, the House of Representatives had not formally consented to Senate adjournment. It’s true the House did this to block the President from making recess appointments, but it is following the Constitution in doing so. Let’s hear Mr. Obama’s legal justification.

 

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Patriot 8888

This issue, at first glance, appears to be separate from whether Obama was justified in ignoring the "gimmick" — the White House's words — used by Senate Republicans to try to block his recess appointments.

While the Senate hasn't conducted any real business over its very real holiday break, Republicans have convened pro forma sessions once every three days — the thinking being, since the Senate was technically in session, there was no recess and thus recess appointments were impossible. The pro forma sessions are the equivalent of punching your time card when you get into work in the morning, tuning on your heel, and walking out the door.

The White House said the pro form sessions weren't enough to stand in Obama's way, and legal experts have argued that the Senate, for the purposes of appointments, must be able to provide advice and consent to the president. Clearly, the Senate isn't functioning in any meaningful way right now, so it can't provide advice and consent. Thus, the president can make recess appointments.

Republicans apparently added another layer of protection against recess appointments, since the Republican-controlled House never agreed to let the Senate adjourn

The Devil is always in the details. One simple fact might negate all of BO's actions - the House never approved Senate adjournment, as spelled out in the Constitution. No possibility of misinterpretation.

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 12:15 PM EST
Sebbydad

I am very much looking forward to the inevitable legal challenge and the argument about how the GOP is standing firm its belief that financial institutions should not be regulated at all. Should make for good debate this year.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 3:44 PM EST
Patriot 8888

Sebbydad you do not understand the issue. The GOP is not against the board to protect consumers. The issue is putting all the power in one man's hands. The counter proposal is a 5-member board.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:20 PM EST
Prophat247

Facts don't matter to them Patriot, only the seriousness of the charge matters.

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:32 PM EST
Sebbydad

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201040004

Speaker Boener made it clear - he is against the existence of the board.

The GOP has been fighting this since 2010, they have tried to defund it and eliminate it.

They do not want oversight over financial institutions that would protect consumers. Just like he fought the tax cuts for all the paycheck to paycheck earners, he didn't relent because he wanted to, he relented because he got called out on his stated position that tax cuts for non-elite earners are spending and tax cuts for elite earners are free.

  • 1 vote
#2.3 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:29 PM EST
Patriot 8888

What does Boehner have to do with the Senate?? Water under the bridge.

This is irrelevant as the protections are now in place. The issue now is the mechanics of running the monstrosity and enforcement.

  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:40 PM EST
Sebbydad

Ok, you clearly have no idea what is going on, the entire argument regarding recess is not due to the Senate actually doing anything but the House holding pro-forma sessions and not agreeing to a recess (even though just about everyone was gone- nice work if you can get it)

The protections are not in place, since they could not stop it from becoming law couldn't water it down enough, and then could not defund it they will now try to keep a director from being appointed so it can do its job.

For the love of pete please get a clue before you begin typing your nonsense, I'd prefer it to be at least well informed nonsense with at least a half truth included occasionally to put some grounding in reality your perspective.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:52 PM EST
Patriot 8888

Sebbydad you crack me up. LOL. "for the love of Pete" (btw who's Pete)

I posted the article so I indeed understand the issue.

Try to go back a little further than the past 2 weeks and I am sure it will all make sense.

    #2.6 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:04 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    You also posted an article regarding Pepsi considering laying off 4000 workers because the shareholders wanted a stock price increase like Coke had decided that it was all Obama's fault. Just because you post an article doesn't mean you understand what it says. Since you don't think that Bohener has anything to do with this issue when it is the HOUSE that is holding pro-forma sessions per his direction clearly shows that you have not the first idea of what you are talking about.

    GOP opposition to this Protection bureau goes back to 2009, as posted below.

    • 1 vote
    #2.7 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:19 PM EST
    Patriot 8888

    Please don't be facetious.

    I realize that apologizing for Barry can be a full-time job but it is clear that the buck stops with him.

    He has done nothing to enhance the business climate such that companies are taking drastic measures to at least maintain the status quo.

    • 1 vote
    #2.8 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:12 PM EST
    Sebbydad

    Maintain the status quo?! You truly are being intentionally dense on this issue aren't you? Corporations are posting RECORD PROFITS! I haven't apologized for anything, there is no need. You on the other hand have made your ignorance clear as you cannot put forward a single thing this president has done that has inhibited business in any way, which is evident by their financial success since he took office.

    • 1 vote
    #2.9 - Fri Jan 6, 2012 3:41 PM EST
    Reply
    Sebbydad

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/23/business/fi-consumer-agency23

    The GOP wants a weak agency with no power to affect any rules to protect consumers - just like the bank lobbyists want.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#3 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:38 PM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.