Pelosi: I’m darned proud of Obama for making these illegal recess appointments

posted at 3:57 pm on January 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

Some said she’d never top her infamous reply when asked to explain the constitutional basis for ObamaCare’s mandate, but you know Nancy — always striving to improve. Notice here that she doesn’t try to defend Obama’s move on legal grounds. She could have, as that’s what the follow-up question is looking for, but all she’s willing to do when pressed is mumble something about “public debate.” For good reason: Even if there’s a constitutional argument to be made in Obama’s defense, that argument isn’t available to Democrats. They used pro forma sessions, successfully, to block Bush; the only way to square that circle is to argue that the GOP is being more obstructionist than they were, to the point where other branches are now free to ignore separation-of-powers provisions in the Constitution in order to break the impasse. It’s as if Obama, frustrated at seeing Democratic bills stalled in the House and Senate, had suddenly decreed that some of those bills will be treated as valid law. That’d show that “do-nothing Congress” a thing or two, eh? It’s nutty, and insanely shortsighted given that a Republican president will end up clubbing them over the head with this precedent, but it might help Obama’s reelection bid marginally, so hey.

Exit quotation: “It was the latest milestone in Obama’s journey from bipartisan conciliator to partisan agitator, perhaps the starkest break to date from his campaign promises to change the tone in Washington.” Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?

ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Good news ernesto. You are only the second worst troller at Hot Air.

NotCoach on January 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM

When I read ernesto’s post, I felt a fleeting nostalgia for the days when he actually represented the worst trolls on the site. Personally, I think the recent influx of Paulbots included a cadre that has pushed old ernesto down to the second tier. As a troll, he just doesn’t hold a candle to them. Ed had to ban a few more of them just today.

As for Nancy, if Zero defecated on the White House lawn she would call a press conference to pimp it.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The Great Pharaoh Obama the 1st says (So let it be written so let it be done)Next let his great image be places on all monuments and on all coins of his kingdom. We peasants must remember that the Great Obama the 1st is all knowing and seeing and his wishes are law.God help us please.

logman1 on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?

ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

True to troll form—-one hit and split post at 3:59, thirty minutes go by and no followup.

arnold ziffel on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Once upon a time, many years ago, we used to have legislators who cared about the Constitution and the separation of powers, now it depends on which party has the presidency. What a shame.

bflat879 on January 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Folks, its happening. We’re witnessing our government abandon the US Constitution in favor of something else, right before our eyes. And they are proud of it.

Its time to wake up and realize that this is real.

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:04 PM

This!

Meanwhile back at GOP HQ the’re wondering when the rank and file citizens are gonna do sumpthin.

antipc on January 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM

This is where you put your money where your mouth is literally.

Tax day is coming up, you want to shut down the Obama Administration, you want to impeach Obama? Do not pay your taxes on April 17th. It really is that simple, put your money where your mouth is.

SWalker on January 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Grading based on creativity and obviousness. Ernesto is an obvious and uncreative troll.

NotCoach on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

It’s goooood that you did that, Obama, very goooooood. Please don’t wish me into the cornfields, it was goooooood that you did that.

DrAllecon on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

A senator will have to live on the floor of the senate 24/7/365 in order to never have a recess again. Otherwise don’t even bother with the confirmation process. Every appointment Obama can’t get through will be made on weekends when the senate is in recess.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

It’s hilarious that Ernesto was the first one in with his snarky comment, promptly got b*-slapped and runs away.

PackerBronco on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

How long Oh Lord, how long?

No wonder gun sales are skyrocketing!

Ozmondias on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

That’d show that “do-nothing Congress Republicans” a thing or two, eh?

Just had to fix that.

That’s right, the Republicans are do-nothings. To the point that they won’t even look for their own ‘nads, let alone make any effort to combat the Great Invalidator.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men Republicans do nothing. (With all apologies to Edmund Burke.)

Dime IV on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

JoeShmoe99:

It is that erosion of the original intent and the continued erosion that is dangerous. Very dangerous.

The President is forced to work with Congress to appoint officials. Elections have consequences. If the President is unable to work within the law and rules and precedent and circumvents the very law he has taken an oath to uphold, then what standard should he be held too? What law?

James on January 5, 2012 at 4:31 PM

It’s not news when Democrats act like Democrats.

I hope Hot Air will let us know when they start acting like Americans.

Socratease on January 5, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?
ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The senate is not in recess, Che.

Akzed on January 5, 2012 at 4:31 PM

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Romney isn’t a member of Congress.

I believe you meant McConnell, Boehner and Cantor.

BacaDog on January 5, 2012 at 4:32 PM

The GOP should ignore Obama for a few weeks give him even more rope to hang himself.

Theworldisnotenough on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Ummm .. dare I ask who’s the worst?

Chip on January 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

crr6?

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM

crr6, definitely. ernie’s a cheapo knockoff.

sage0925 on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The House Republicans need to start impeachment proceedings against Hugo Obama imminently.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The trouble is we all know about this because we read sites like this one. Without a short, well thought out, simple to understand response from the Republicans, this is a great big “who cares?” to the rest of the country.

Republicans?….crickets…

jjjdad on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Ed had to ban a few more of them just today.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I missed it…

… which thread?

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I am so damn sick and tired of all of this nonsense from this administration. He, the constitutional law scholar, is openly disobeying the Constitution and what happens? NOTHING. At what point does his lawlessness start to matter to people (other than us of course)???

KateNE on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The token “Republican” that was “appointed” to the NLRB should refuse the post out of protest.

James on January 5, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Ok….here we go, slowly:

1. Recess appointments are Constitutional
2. Congress is not in recess
3. Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional

Got it now?

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM

And a little less condescension and a more careful reading of the question before trying to show are smart you are would be appreciated.

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?
ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The senate is not in recess, Che.

Akzed on January 5, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Neither Che Ernesto nor Adolf Obama care.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I read this to mean vacancies that actually occur unexpectedly during a recess that urgently need to be filled. Can someone smarter straighten me out here?

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Thanks Bozo, I got that a long time ago but you still haven’t addressed by question

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Where do we start in explaining it to you Ann? The republicans were holding up the nomination of anyone to head the new Consumer Finance Protection Board. That new board is a part of the Dodd-Frank legislation that will track every financial move we make. The Dodd-Frank law passed on 1/5/2010 with Scott Brown joining to give them the 60 votes needed to make it filibuster proof. That board answers only to the fed treasury secretary who is supposed to be by now Jon Corzine. The same Jon Corzine that won’t account for the $1.2 billion in investor dollars he lost hedging on European bond sales with a mere 2.5% stake by MF Global.

What exactly is your question related to? What is unexpected? What emergency do you percieve?

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Ummm .. dare I ask who’s the worst?

Chip on January 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Grow Fins…

… genital warts and all.

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

As for Nancy, if Zero defecated on the White House lawn she would call a press conference to pimp it.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

And the MSM would gleefully cover it, in awe of the sheen and texture.

BacaDog on January 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?

ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Why yes, ernesto, they are. Don’t you remember?

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)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ‘An end run around the Senate and the Constitution.’ “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

· REID: ‘They are mischievous.’ “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)

· REID: Recess appointments an ‘abuse of power.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)

· REID: A recess appointee will have ‘a cloud hanging over his head.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): ‘Troubling.’ “When you have an appointment that is this critical and this sensitive, and the president basically says he’s going to ignore the will of the senate and push someone through, it really is troubling.” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

· DURBIN: ‘Could easily be unconstitutional.’ “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Recess appointments an ‘abuse [of] the power of the presidency.’ “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …” (“Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 4/5/07)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “…bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress.” (“President Sends Bolton to U.N.; Bypasses Senate,” The New York Times, 8/2/05)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered…” (“Dem Baucus Joins GOP In Blasting Obama CMS Recess Appointment,” The Hill, 7/7/10)

Now, unless you want to call Teddy Kennedy, who shrieked that they were unconstitutional, a liar, then all you’ve exposed yourself as being at this point is a loser Obama bigot.

Again, no surprise. Bigots like yourself aren’t rational individuals. You’ve already demonstrated that you lack the intellectual and emotional capacity to criticize Barack Obama. You are so helpless mentally that you have to support and spin for everything that Barack Obama does, even if it makes you look like a fool.

And it does. You, the media, your Pelosi, your Obama Party, all the people who are now having to go out and desperately spin for Obama taking actions that all of you screamed were illegal and unconstitutional not two years ago.

How do you think the Obama Party will hold up with this, bigot? To what extent are you and the media willing to humiliate yourself and demonstrate your blind hatred and bigotry to spin for your Obama?

northdallasthirty on January 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Ummm .. dare I ask who’s the worst?

Chip on January 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Well, if we are going for the nostalgia vote, I’d say it’s a tie between anninca and TheRaceCard. But if we are including the newbies, there was at least one banning that I know of today.

It was in the ATF memorial thread.

Lily on January 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Why is my interpretation of the specific article in the constitution wrong.

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM

You said:

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I read this to mean vacancies that actually occur unexpectedly during a recess that urgently need to be filled.

I can only surmise you are questioning the unexpected and urgent nature of the clause.

Neither of those words appear in the Constitution in the context of recess appointments. Nor has there ever been a requirement for a recess appointment to be either unexpected or urgently needed.

It merely means that the President does not have to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments when the Senate is not in session. Necessity has never been questioned.

Propriety of the choice is moreso an issue today than ever before, as Presidents use the recess to make controversial appointments that otherwise would not make it through the Senate.

Your welcome.

Love,

Bozo

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Republican members of the House need to remember their oath to the United States Constitution. So do military officers.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

So why do we need you, you hag!

DWoDiego on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

It seems clear now that Obama is officially a dictator and our great country is now a banana republic. Never thought I would see that in my lifetime. I believe he has no intention of leaving office and will do whatever is necessary to avoid that. He takes the first step to sidestep the constitution, and then there is no stopping him. Where are the gutless Republicans screaming en masse about this? This is huge!

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Obama thinks he is Hitler.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Grow Fins…

… genital warts and all.

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Haven’t seen grow fins in ages. Seemed to sneak off once it was clear Gitmo wasn’t getting closed after all.

Scrappy on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

These appointments are moot, and anything the appointees do should be roundly ignored by Americans.

I don’t pretend to advise Democrats on how to behave, but American should ignore them.

Akzed on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I guess I’m kind of a glass is half full guy, because I see all kinds of opportunities opening up when we take back the White House next year. If the Democrats are OK with the president deciding what constitutes a real recess or not, OK fine. Be careful what you wish for.

WarEagle01 on January 5, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Yeah, my take on the Obamacare individual mandates are… If they stand (via Supreme Court), the next conservative President should…

1) Issue an Executive Order voiding all waivers from the healthcare law (since the waivers were illegally granted by the executive branch to start with). Since a third of the recipients were unions, it’s time they eat the crap sandwich they made the rest of us!

2) Propose a new individual mandate bill using the existing one as precedent… All citizens defined as militia per their state constitution shall be required to purchase firearms and ammo and prove their possession, or be fined $10,000 per year for the burden they place on society in defending them (via police, military, neighbors, etc).

3) Propose a bill striking down the healthcare law and voiding the precedent set by individual mandates, and reaffirming the true Constitutional meaning of the Commerce Clause, as a way to prevent #1 and #2… and watch how fast people move to have it struck down!

(P.S. In section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, it defines the state militia as… “All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.”)

dominigan on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Where are the gutless Republicans screaming en masse about this? This is huge!

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Collectively they are hiding under their beds crying for mommy.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Haven’t seen grow fins in ages. Seemed to sneak off once it was clear Gitmo wasn’t getting closed after all.

Scrappy on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I think he got banned.

NapaConservative on January 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Obama thinks he is Hitler.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

If he doesn’t get impeached over this, then he is right.

SWalker on January 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Click the image to watch.

Pass.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

What exactly is your question related to? What is unexpected? What emergency do you percieve?

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The post was filled at the time the Senate went to recess and became vacant while in recess. Through death, scandal, resignation.

I understand that precedence changes strict interpretation and was more pondering what was the original intent.

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I read this to mean vacancies that actually occur unexpectedly during a recess that urgently need to be filled. Can someone smarter straighten me out here?

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I’m no scholar either, Ann, but let me take a stab at it.

I was told by a legal beagle that the original intent was for the President to be able to appoint someone during a recess so as to bot have to call Congress back in session. At the time, it was difficult call everyone back as travel was slow and some travelled great distances.

So, the President had to authority to fill positions when needed for unexpected circumstances.

It has evolved into a loophole (in my opinion), as it would be easy now to recall the bastards on short notice to confirm someone if needed.

But, it’s the law, and many Presidents, both R’s and D’s take advantage of the “recess” to appoint people.

BacaDog on January 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I read this to mean vacancies that actually occur unexpectedly during a recess that urgently need to be filled. Can someone smarter straighten me out here?

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Wish I could help, however that is how I read it also.

Wade on January 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

“When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” Obama said during a quick trip to Shaker Heights, a Cleveland suburb. “I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve.”

This is the part that bothers me the most.

The fact is, under the Constitution, he has the obligation to precisely NOTHING without them. That is, in fact, the EXACT INTENT of the Founders in the Constitution. It is specifically designed for it to be hard to accomplish things, and the Senate is specifically designed to be the largest hurdle. If it were easy, then anything any everything would get passed. It’s hard for exactly the reason of ensuring that only things that the majority of people can agree on actually get done.

We keep being told that this man was a Constitutional Law professor, and yet he doesn’t understand that most very basic fact about the design of our founding document. Or more likely, he simply ignores it for convenience.

gravityman on January 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?

ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The Senate is NOT in recess; hence, there can be no recess appointments.

I just put up a quick note on the legalities on my blog (I haven’t proofread it yet, so pardon the mess, if any):

Careful Barack, That Tree Might Start Getting Thirsty.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/01/careful-barack-that-tree-might-start.html

Resist We Much on January 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I think we have gone a little beyond Watergate now. Why is it that members of congress and military officers even take an oath to the United States Constitution? They are worthless.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

NotCoach on January 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

OK, by that measure, I can’t argue.

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The memorial fund for slain BATFE agent thread. Check it out, because he didn’t get them all, and we will be dealing with the others. At least one of them is over here.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

1) Issue an Executive Order voiding all waivers from the healthcare law (since the waivers were illegally granted by the executive branch to start with). Since a third of the recipients were unions, it’s time they eat the crap sandwich they made the rest of us!

dominigan on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Make it retro active to the beginning of 2008. That’s what Dodd-Frank does for FDIC insurance being upped to $250,000 per account from the previous $100,000. There’s a reason for that.

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I read this to mean vacancies that actually occur unexpectedly during a recess that urgently need to be filled. Can someone smarter straighten me out here?

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I guess it depends on how one interpets unexpectedly and urgently. IIRC, Cordray’s name had only been up for confirmation for a couple of weeks and the Labor Relations Board vacancies didn’t occur unexpectedly. Which is all moot, because the Senate wasn’t in recess.

a capella on January 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Your welcome.

Love,

Bozo

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Thanks and sorry I called you Bozo. I haven’t posted in ages and the first time I do I get an immediate snarky answer as if to a troll – just rubbed me the wrong way.

Civility back on.

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Obviously oaths mean nothing to these cretins.

hillbillyjim on January 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Would “Oaf of Office” be too derivative?

apostic on January 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

We now have more of a czar than do the Russians.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day — whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans, we can’t wait to act to strengthen the economy and restore security for our middle class…

-Barack Obama

We deserve someone to “fight” for us? Fight whom?

‘Enforce protection’ and ‘restore security’… Hmmmm. It’s all sounding eerily familiar.

It’s always about the ‘middle class’. It’s for our own good, don’t you know.

labrat on January 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Good news ernesto. You are only the second worst troller at Hot Air.

NotCoach on January 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM

With all the new competition that has come in during the recent open registrations, that is quite a compliment.

Lily on January 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Ummm .. dare I ask who’s the worst?

Chip on January 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

There was a bit of carnage earlier this afternoon over on Ed’s ATF thread. He banned a couple of them rather quickly.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Wait, recess appointments are illegal?

ernesto on January 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The Senate is NOT in recess; hence, there can be no recess appointments.

I just put up a quick note on the legalities on my blog (I haven’t proofed it yet, so pardon the mess, if any).

Careful Barack, That Tree Might Start Getting Thirsty.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/01/careful-barack-that-tree-might-start.html

Resist We Much on January 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Castro and Chavez heart Hussein Benito Adolf Louie Obama.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Ed had to ban a few more of them just today.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I missed it…

… which thread?

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The ATF thread:

[Comment deleted, user banned -- Ed]

Mendicant Optimist on January 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM

and

original signed on January 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

No, but I’ve rethought your membership on these boards, along with a couple of your cohorts.

To everyone else who wants to use this to exploit your anti-ATF rage: Take a hike. We’re not going to tolerate trolling on this thread. Shame on you.

Ed Morrissey on January 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

UltimateBob on January 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Would McCain call her a liar? ….

Shain1611 on January 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

“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.”

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I read this to mean vacancies that actually occur unexpectedly during a recess that urgently need to be filled. Can someone smarter straighten me out here?

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:16 PM

My reading is that you are correct, although the urgency is implied. The clause does not simply grant power to fill vacancies during a recess, but all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.

Thus, 1) the position must be filled while the Senate is in session, then 2) the Senate goes on recess, then 3) the vacancy occurs, then 4) the President can fill the vacancy.

However, as others here have bluntly pointed out… this is all moot since the Senate wasn’t even in recess when the President made the appointments.

dominigan on January 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Even the French would not put up with this. Soon now the French will start making jokes about Americans. This is how far we have fallen.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

ernesto

Have someone literate read Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution to you.

Nowhere in Article 2 is the term “executive order” used. In Section 2 of Article 2, the President is authorized to fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess which only last until the end of the next Senate session.

Hard to square the actions of the Kenyan Communist with constitutionality or legality.

Actually, when it comes to legality, it starts with his ineligibility for the Presidency in the first place.

Horace on January 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Haven’t seen grow fins in ages. Seemed to sneak off once it was clear Gitmo wasn’t getting closed after all.

Scrappy on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I think he got banned.

NapaConservative on January 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Correct. Also a couple of other Hot Gas Greatest Hits, like Bleeds Blue and Race Card.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM

On a side note, I don’t believe the recess appointments have been done properly. “vacancies which may happen during the recess…” says to me, a vacancy that occurs during a recess, not one that is concurrently open while a recess is in progress. Without that interpretation there is nothing preventing constant recess appointments since the “commissions…expire at the end of the next session”.

There wasn’t quick transportation, and I’m sure there was an assumption (imo) that when a session resumes, the nomination would come forward. It’s basically a trust-based issue, as is most of the US Constitution.

Now there’s the “what’s constitute a session and recess”. Article I, Section 5, is somewhat a confusing. Not sure if ‘pro forma sessions’ are allowed, but if that counts as a recess, the next one would be the end of the next session, hence all 4 are out once more. (Assuming Cordray stays, regarding the language of Dodd-Frank of needing confirmation.)

John Kettlewell on January 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I was told by a legal beagle that the original intent was for the President to be able to appoint someone during a recess so as to bot have to call Congress back in session. At the time, it was difficult call everyone back as travel was slow and some travelled great distances.

That is precisely it, BacaDog. It was written for a time when Congress was a part time job, and members of the Senate and Congress actually went home for a good half of the year and attended to their farms, plantations, law practices, merchant business, or whatever other thing they did for an actual profession… before Congress was a profession unto itself. Travel took much longer then, and even getting a simple message to the members spread across the country could take days and weeks. If someone like the Secretary of State or the Secretary of War died while the Senate was not in session, it could take weeks to get the Senators back and in session. Hence the need for the President to make temporary appointments, with the term being until the end of the following session of Congress, under the presumption that a permanent replacement appointee would be confirmed during that following session.

Given the modern technology for instant communication and long distance travel, the need for recess appointments is pretty much past. However, it sticks around as a political tool for Presidents to insert someone into a post when they know the Senate won’t confirm them.

gravityman on January 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I agree it is a moot point.

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Does anyone have a linky to a Republican response to this…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Mitch McConnell had a great one yesterday. Text at Power Line here:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/that-was-then-this-is-now.php

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Nancy-poo lives in her own little world.

GarandFan on January 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I guess it depends on how one interpets unexpectedly and urgently. IIRC, Cordray’s name had only been up for confirmation for a couple of weeks and the Labor Relations Board vacancies didn’t occur unexpectedly. Which is all moot, because the Senate wasn’t in recess.

a capella on January 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Where in the Constitution does it say unexpectedly or urgent regarding recess appointments?

I think another question may have is one of “a vacancy occurring during a recess”, and not a vacancy before the senate goes into recess.

From the Senate website:

What Constitutes a “Vacancy”? Historically, questions have arisen about the meaning of the constitutional phrase “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” Does “happen” mean “exist” or “occur”? The first meaning would allow the President to make recess appointments to any position that became vacant prior to the recess and continued to be vacant during the recess, as well as positions that became vacant during the recess. The second meaning would allow recess appointments only to positions that became vacant during the recess. Although this question was a source of controversy in the early 19th century, Attorneys General and courts have now long supported the first, broader interpretation of the phrase.

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I’m no Constitutional scholar

Pretend that you are and just make stuff up.

That’s what the real ones do.

NoDonkey on January 5, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Not trying to be offensive but what are you talking about? The repubs have been keeping the senate in pro-forma recess to stop Obama from doing what he did. They have said all along if they could participate in changing the law they had absolutley no input on they would lift their hold on the appointment. Elizabeth Warren was originally nominated but she backed out when the GOP senators asked her to sit for a hearing. She claimed she was too busy and ran off for a Cosmopolitan interview instead.

The post was never filled until yesterday. As far as the constitutionality? This will be the only agency that will have NO congressional oversight for budgeting. It will operate under the direction of the secretary of the treasury, who serves at the pleasure of the president.

The original intent is to create a system to implement the VAT. Hope that helps but I’m not sure you are even asking a question about the subject.

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Your welcome.

Love,

Bozo

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Thanks and sorry I called you Bozo. I haven’t posted in ages and the first time I do I get an immediate snarky answer as if to a troll – just rubbed me the wrong way.

Civility back on.

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

You two do know that today is the 60th anniversary of the first TV broadcast of Bozo the Clown in LA, don’t you?

No need to thank me…

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I see some others caught on as well to RA’s.

I’m wondering whether this will blow over like everything else when the next big thing hits. Is this the Repubs defining moment after becoming invertebrates last year?

John Kettlewell on January 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Haven’t seen grow fins in ages. Seemed to sneak off once it was clear Gitmo wasn’t getting closed after all.

Scrappy on January 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I think he got banned.

NapaConservative on January 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Good. I knew TheRaceCard was banned, but I didn’t know AnninCA got the hammer. She got away with a lot… I remember she used to throw the F-word around.

Whatever happened to crr6, Dave Rywall and Tom Shipley?

Just reminiscing about some of our old trolls here.

UltimateBob on January 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

It seems clear now that Obama is officially a dictator and our great country is now a banana republic. Never thought I would see that in my lifetime. I believe he has no intention of leaving office and will do whatever is necessary to avoid that. He takes the first step to sidestep the constitution, and then there is no stopping him. Where are the gutless Republicans screaming en masse about this? This is huge!
silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

You are certainly right about his intentions – we’ve seen 0bamessiah’s position on this kind of behavior, when He took Zelaya’s side in Honduras a few years ago. You are also certainly right that this is huge. I am not the least bit worried about him succeeding, however – there are far too many people in this country who won’t roll over without a serious fight for a degenerate like Him – He’ll regret He tried this, and He’ll regret it sooner than many fear. I don’t ever like saying, “Trust me on this,” but I will say that don’t mind making bets about it! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on January 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

The House Republicans need to start impeachment proceedings against Hugo Obama imminently.

VorDaj on January 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Just one more of many reasons why Stinky (B.O. that is) needs to be impeached.

I mean, we impeached the last Democrat in office for perjury regarding a blowjob, right? Seems like this is a bit more serious…

ProfShadow on January 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Is this the Repubs defining moment after becoming invertebrates last year?

John Kettlewell on January 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

My guess is no. Once a jellyfish, always a jellyfish.

BacaDog on January 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

BacaDog on January 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Correct. It was originally meant to allow the President to make appointments to keep the government functioning while the Congress was not in session. Remember, way, way back in the olden days, they didn’t have Chevy Volts or Amtrak to speed back to DC from the hinterlands. Getting back to DC meant days in the saddle or staring at the ass ends of horses, donkeys or oxen. (And when they did get back, it was more of the same, but I digress.)

Now that Congress comes and goes and comes and goes and comes and goes, it has become a loophole for circumventing the requirement of Senate approval of appointments. Zero used to think recess appointments ranked up there with the Seven Deadly Sins, but since his election White House lawyers have explained to him that the Constitutional restrictions on Presidential power don’t apply, you know, to him.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

gravityman on January 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Yes, this is a massive problem and is why Obama went to Kansas to give that speech a bit back.

This is where he gets this lovely and most splendid idea.

From Theodore Roosevelt’s autobiography, Chapter X:

The most important factor in getting the right spirit in my Administration, next to the insistence upon courage, honesty, and a genuine democracy of desire to serve the plain people, was my insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress under its Constitutional powers. My view was that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition. I did not care a rap for the mere form and show of power; I cared immensely for the use that could be made of the substance. The Senate at one time objected to my communicating with them in printing, preferring the expensive, foolish, and laborious practice of writing out the messages by hand. It was not possible to return to the outworn archaism of hand writing; but we endeavored to have the printing made as pretty as possible. Whether I communicated with the Congress in writing or by word of mouth, and whether the writing was by a machine, or a pen, were equally, and absolutely, unimportant matters. The importance lay in what I said and in the heed paid to what I said. So as to my meeting and consulting Senators, Congressmen, politicians, financiers, and labor men. I consulted all who wished to see me; and if I wished to see any one, I sent for him; and where the consultation took place was a matter of supreme unimportance. I consulted every man with the sincere hope that I could profit by and follow his advice; I consulted every member of Congress who wished to be consulted, hoping to be able to come to an agreement of action with him; and I always finally acted as my conscience and common sense bade me act.

So much for the constitution if you are a Progressive.

If you think it has to be done, well, you just do it.

And it doesn’t even start with TR… it won’t end with Obama but he may be the last and final stretch where this kind of thinking is given any credence.

ajacksonian on January 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I think Ann knows that what Obama did was make an appointment while the Senate was still in session. She wasn’t asking about that. She had a question about the exact meaning of the clause as it pertains what circumstance the President can make an appointment when the Senate is in recess.

NotCoach on January 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Wish I could help, however that is how I read it also.

Wade on January 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

There might be three things going on here, with the cut and dried part is the Senate was not in recess. Recess is effectively a mutually agreed-to time by both the House and Senate. Since there is no agreement in effect, the President is FORBIDDEN to make recess appointments. It’s a technicality, too, used by both parties as the Dems openly did it to prevent W from making recess appointments during his term in office. The irony is that even Reid went over the top when Bush did it legally. Bottom line – no recess; no recess appointments.

The second part is Obama only gave this name for confirmation on 12/15. Law and technicalities aside, was this a moral thing to do. And when you actually read the legislation, the oddest part of the law explicitly says the head of this agency MUST BE confirmed by the Senate. So even if you give O a pass on the recess or not question, he’s still circumventing the law by its own language.

The third part is this may or may not have anything to do with Cordray himself. The Republicans are essentially against this new agency getting off the ground due to the language that created its charter.

This whole thread is about all of us being judge, jury, and executioner, but if you take the letter of the law, I’d say he’s guilty on at least two counts. Not to mention the politics of being a schoolyard bully and essentially defending himself to the country as “they deserved this”.

VietVet_Dave on January 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM

NotCoach on January 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Yeah, I went back and thought I came across harsh but with about 10 quotes from Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer and Obama denouncing the same thing they are celebrating already posted plus the context of the entire appointment and how it came about I thought I was dealing with an intentionally obtuse Kos poster. Maybe it was the postings of AnninCa that made me trigger happy too.

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I mean, we impeached the last Democrat in office for perjury regarding a blowjob, right? Seems like this is a bit more serious…

ProfShadow on January 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Actually, Clinton was impeached on 2 separate charges-perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Two other charges, an additional perjury charge and Abuse of Power, never made it out of the House.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM

“We’re glad that the president took the lead, went out there, was bold and made the appointments.”

… and walked all over the Constitution. Just because we can. Na na na, Na, Na na! {thumb on nose, waggling fingers in the air}

Lawrence on January 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

UltimateBob on January 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I don’t think AnninCA got the ban hammer. She just went away, apparently.

BTW, I always believed that AnninCA was not a single person, but most likely a high school or college civics or government class that would trade the Ann persona from student to student. Some sort of class assignment. I say this because we haven’t heard from Ann since May/June of 2011, unless I missed her somewhere since.

“her” comments seemed too broad, and quite frankly she flip-flopped more than Romney. “Her” writing style changed alot, too.

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I truly hope you are right about this, but no one has stopped him yet for all the unlawful things his administration has done. We sit here agape at the things he’s done, and Issa is having continual hearings, but it seems it’s all for show. We have proof Holder lied to Congress – what does it take to be impeached? What is the point if you take no action?

silvernana on January 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Zero used to think recess appointments ranked up there with the Seven Deadly Sins, but since his election White House lawyers have explained to him that the Constitutional restrictions on Presidential power don’t apply, you know, to him.

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

He’s flip-flopped on air raiding villages, too.

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Just reminiscing about some of our old trolls here.

UltimateBob on January 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Yeah, those were the good old days….

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Sorry if I wasn’t clear but I was referring strictly to the constitutional clause related to recess appointments that I quoted in my first post. By original intent, I was referring to the Founder’s original intention in drafting that clause. I don’t believe it was intended to be an end around a blocked appointment as it has become.

Guess I better stop posting again….

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 5:08 PM

BTW, I always believed that AnninCA was not a single person, but most likely a high school or college civics or government class that would trade the Ann persona from student to student. Some sort of class assignment. I say this because we haven’t heard from Ann since May/June of 2011, unless I missed her somewhere since.

“her” comments seemed too broad, and quite frankly she flip-flopped more than Romney. “Her” writing style changed alot, too.

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I always thought she was an Allahpundit sock.

a capella on January 5, 2012 at 5:11 PM

As if we needed more evidence Democrats don’t give a damn about the Constitution.

If we don’t stop them in November, it will be as disastrous to our country as the Germans electing Hitler was to theirs.

WannabeAnglican on January 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Yeah, I went back and thought I came across harsh but with about 10 quotes from Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer and Obama denouncing the same thing they are celebrating already posted plus the context of the entire appointment and how it came about I thought I was dealing with an intentionally obtuse Kos poster. Maybe it was the postings of AnninCa that made me trigger happy too.

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I’m not AnninCa!!!! God forbid!!!

Ann on January 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Would “Oaf of Office” be too derivative?

apostic on January 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Nah. I’d say that it fits the Pelosi, among many others, perfectly.

hillbillyjim on January 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Whatever happened to crr6, Dave Rywall and Tom Shipley?

Just reminiscing about some of our old trolls here.

UltimateBob on January 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Shipley surfaced here the other day, can’t remember which thread. Apparently he’s back from his sabbatical in Eastern Albania.

Drywall was still here last time I checked. But Hockey Season is in full swing now so maybe he’s distracted by that.

Last crr6 sighting as I recall was in August.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

He’s flip-flopped on air raiding villages, too.

BobMbx on January 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

It doesn’t count as air raiding villages if you use drones, and if, prior to issuing the order to blow some terrorist scum to Hell, Dorothy Zero goes to the Oval Office, closes her eyes, clicks her ruby slippers Air Jordan heels together three times, and whispers,

“There is none like the Won! There is none like the Won!

novaculus on January 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Actually, Clinton was impeached on 2 separate charges-perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Two other charges, an additional perjury charge and Abuse of Power, never made it out of the House.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM

He was hit with suborning perjury, too. He plotted with witnesses to perjure themselves, which was even worse than his own personal perjury.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3