IMPEACH OBAMA.....HIS RECENT APPOINTMENTS CROSSED THE LINE WITH AN END RUN AROUND THE CONSTITUTION

[Whirlaway]

From the Right Scoop:

The Constitution gives the power to the President to make recess appointments when the Senate is in recess:

Article II, Section 2: – 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.

So in order for Obama to make recess appointments, the Senate must be in recess. Here’s what the Constitution says about that:

Article I, Section 5: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

So in order for the Senate to recess more than three days, it must have the consent of the House. But that hasn’t happened, according to the Washington Examiner:

This presents a problem for President Obama, who claims to have just made a recess appointment when the Senate is not actually in recess. The Constitution says the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the House’s permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity.

There is an argument that pro-forma sessions are just a sham. Obama is not the first to make it. I don’t find it very persuasive, but it’s an argument that some very smart people make.

Yet in this particular case, in which the House has not consented to a Senate recess, the pro forma session does not seem to be the issue. The Constitution is the issue. Without the consent of the House to adjourn for more than three days, the Senate is in session, whether it wants to be or not.

And to top this off, Obama’s own Deputy Solicitor General argued in the Supreme Court in 2010 that Obama could not make a recess appointment unless the recess were longer than three days (via Washington Examiner):

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

Obama’s own lawyers argued on his behalf, to keep the NRLB operating without its nominees being appointed, that Obama was unable to recess appoint because the Senate had not been in recess for longer than three days.

But now, Obama argues that the Senate is in recess to fit his agenda, when it is clearly not.

So this is why Obama has violated the Constitution and why you should care. It’s a recess appointment today. Who knows what it will be tomorrow.

[Munchmasterman]

Others disagree.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71089.html
.

[I B Hankering]

“At some point, there is going to be a challenge over something it [the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] does, and whoever is challenging it would almost be committing legal malpractice not to raise these ripe constitutional questions,”said David Hirschmann, senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1idvf5nRa

[timpage]

Yes, the US Chamber of Commerce, that bastion of consumer protection. They steadfastly oppose access to the courts for anybody except.....themselves.

Imagine the gall of Obama....actually wanting to appoint someone to represent the interests of individual consumers, rather than the insurance companies and the robber barons. Good for him, I hope he does more recess appointments. I don't recall all this whining from the conservabots when Bush was making his recess appointments.

[dilbert firestorm]

this gaveling to keep the senate in session is stupid and gimmicky.

I'm with Obama on this one.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

this gaveling to keep the senate in session is stupid and gimmicky.

I'm with Obama on this one.

Ah yes, but Obama participated in this "gimmicky shit" when he was in the Senate while Bush was president - once again, he's being his typical hypocritical self.

Only one president in the last 100 years, Truman, transgressed this rule by making one such an appointment: this asshole made four. Theoretically, the president can now make appointments on weekends, just for giggles and shits.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by timpage

Yes, the US Chamber of Commerce, that bastion of consumer protection. They steadfastly oppose access to the courts for anybody except.....themselves.

Imagine the gall of Obama....

Consumer protection? What about the Republic? The gall is quite unimaginable! Obamacare was passed using extraordinary legislative tricks and deceit in Congress. Obama recently signed the NDAA, giving himself more power than any president in U.S. history. Now he violates yet another tenet of the Constitution.

[KlassyKelliAnn]

Obama hates the Constitution. Another piece of proof that he is working to destroy it.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by timpage

Imagine the gall of Obama.... actually wanting to appoint someone to represent the interests of individual consumers, rather than the insurance companies and the robber barons.... I don't recall all this whining from the conservabots when Bush was making his recess appointments.

Well said, timpage! Exactly! The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is so incredibly pro-consumer! LMMFAO! And these morons think consumers don't understand this? I guess, only the "consumers" with room temperature IQ's are so snowed by FOX "News" and Talk Radio that they BELIEVE the "Job Creator" myth!

Hell, they think these so-called job creators need an extension of the Bush tax cuts. The only problem is that these "job creators" are only creating jobs in Peking, Mumbai and Manila.

[CuteOldGuy]

It's ridiculous, and Obama is intentionally ignoring the Constitution. There is a reason why we have, theoretically, three co-equal branches of government. Just because you think he's appointing a "good guy" doesn't give him the right to circumvent the Congress. They were elected, too! And the House changed hands specifically because people are tired of Obama's shit, but he's too arrogant to see that. He should have taken a lesson from Bill Clinton, and actually try to do what the people want him to do.

Recess appointments are ridiculous anyway. There was a need for them in the old days when Congress was in session part time, and a Representative or Senator would have to travel days by horse to get to Washington to approve an appointment. That is not necessary now. It was wrong when Bush appointed Bolton to the UN this way, and it is wrong for Obama to appoint these guys this way.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's ridiculous, and Obama is intentionally ignoring the Constitution. There is a reason why we have, theoretically, three co-equal branches of government. Just because you think he's appointing a "good guy" doesn't give him the right to circumvent the Congress. They were elected, too! And the House changed hands specifically because people are tired of Obama's shit, but he's too arrogant to see that. He should have taken a lesson from Bill Clinton, and actually try to do what the people want him to do. You mean the 5-10% that approve of congress and the way they are giving the nominees a hearing? Or the 90-95% that are fed up with the blocking of hearings for critical posts and business in general?
Recess appointments are ridiculous anyway. There was a need for them in the old days when Congress was in session part time, and a Representative or Senator would have to travel days by horse to get to Washington to approve an appointment. That is not necessary now. It was wrong when Bush appointed Bolton to the UN this way, and it is wrong for Obama to appoint these guys this way.

You do what you have to do.

If the minority party won't hold a hearing until they restructure an entire department the way the chamber of commerce wants it, too bad. Cause we all know that the un-elected chamber of commerce has nothing but our best interest at heart.

You know, the job creators. The ones that created US outsourced jobs for China.
Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey, that's the system. If you want a different system, change it. He has no authority to circumvent congressional approval just because he doesn't like what they are doing.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ah yes, but Obama participated in this "gimmicky shit" when he was in the Senate while Bush was president - once again, he's being his typical hypocritical self.
Your opinion. Everyone knows you work within the system until you can change the system. You were asking about him changing things? Here you go. He overcame an obstacle that should have been taken care of before. The courts will decide if it is legal.
Only one president in the last 100 years, Truman, transgressed this rule by making one such an appointment: this asshole made four. Theoretically, the president can now make appointments on weekends, just for giggles and shits.

He won't have to if timely hearings are done. You vote yes or no. Not "Maybe. We'll get back to you on that."

Plus you made a good call on it being a rule. It's not a violation of the Constitution and we all know what rules are made for (to be broken or challenged).

[i'va biggen]

does this mean Obama is working while the rest are still on vacation?

[robin hood]

It will hurt him in the long run more than it will help him and I am glad for that.