New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

abuse of power

Nullification. Fights between Congress and the president over presidential appointments have gone on for decades. But Senate Republicans have taken the fight to a new level by using the power to deny appointments to require changes in the laws. The Dodd–Frank financial reform established the C.F.R.B., but Wall Street hates it, and Republicans openly vowed not to confirm any director unless Obama agreed to weaken the law.

This is an entirely new use of congressional power to block appointments. The normally mild-mannered James Fallows has called this “nullification,” and Republicans have begun using it to paralyze large swaths of the government. The normal presidential recourse against hardened opposition to an executive branch nominee is to make the appointment when Congress is out of session, but Republicans closed off that avenue as well, by holding pro forma sessions year-round. If it held up, this would give Congress enormous power over the president – allowing it to unilaterally halt any agency it likes in return for any demand at all. They have likewise refused to confirm any directors at all to the National Labor Relations Board, denying the agency a quorum and essentially halting the enforcement of federal labor law.

So Obama tried the audacious and legally indeterminate move of simply declaring the pro-forma session a sham, insisting Congress really was on recess, and appointing his man. If it stands up to the likely legal challenge – the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is threatening to sue – Obama will have taken a dangerous new weapon out of Congress’s hands. Obama’s maneuver may stand, or it may lead to a further reform of the confirmation process. But allowing Congress to functionally eliminate full-passed laws simply by denying the president any appointments to carry them out is a dangerous precedent that Obama would be derelict if he allowed to stand.

more http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/grand-strategy-behind-obamas-recess-appointment.html
 

Corruptbuddha

Governor
So, if the only way to stop this practice is to either get rid of all the republicans (impossible) or get rid of Obama...then logically...well, you get it.

Romney '12.
 

Kenny

Council Member
Harry Reid passed spending spending bills during "sham" pro-forma sessions.

And the Constitution does not give Obama the right to declare the Senate a sham.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Plus gives him a great campaign talking point. Hopefully the Wingers will go full out and try an impeachment again, totally destroying their 2012 Presidential hopes.
 

Corruptbuddha

Governor
Because a Democratic super majority isn't in the cards this election cycle. Not enough seats are up.

So...since the makeup of the Congress won't change for probably two years or so...our only alternative is to replace Obama.

See?
 

Kenny

Council Member
Obama will sign laws Congress does not even pass because he will declare Congress "a sham."
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Because a Democratic super majority isn't in the cards this election cycle. Not enough seats are up.

So...since the makeup of the Congress won't change for probably two years or so...our only alternative is to replace Obama.

See?
Whistling past the graveyard?
 
Plus gives him a great campaign talking point. Hopefully the Wingers will go full out and try an impeachment again, totally destroying their 2012 Presidential hopes.
Although recess appointments that occur while the Senate is at least pretending to conduct business every three days are rare, they are rare for a very simple reason. Few people in American history have done more to obstruct American governance than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his fellow Senate Republicans. As such, it has rarely been necessary for a president to use his constitutionally granted authority to appoint officials during a very short recess.
There are no modern precedents for McConnell-style mass obstructionism, and there is no Supreme Court decision considering how long senators must be out of Washington before recess appointments are allowed. There was, however, a showdown during the Bush Administration over President Bush’s decision to recess appoint Judge William Pryor to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In Evans v. Stephens, that court considered whether Pryor’s appointment was invalid because it occurred during a very short legislative break. This court is the highest legal authority ever to weigh in on the question of whether a break in the Senate’s calendar must last a certain number of days before a recess occurs, and it answered that question with an unambiguous “no”:
The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today.
There are a number of well-established precedents demonstrating the president’s authority to make recess appointments during very brief recesses. In 1903, when the first session of the 58th Congress ended, President Theodore Roosevelt made over 160 recess appointments during a recess that lasted only a fraction of a day. Similarly, President Truman twice made recess appointments during recesses that lasted just a handful of days.
more:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...y-or-tomorrow/
 

IrishOne

Mayor
A politicians job is not to stop government simply because you don't like the president. That is, IMHO, anti-American. After all the concessions Obama bent over backwards to give the GOTP, the least you should be able to do is give the President some respect.

But the extreme right wing nuts still are raging to bring the whole country down, AGAIN , this time because they couldn't win with McCain & Palin. It would be funny if it weren't true. No matter what is served on a platter, the GOTP still hates the waiter (Obama) more than they love this country. Sad.

Ever gonna admit you caused the greatest reccession since the 1930s?

Ever gonna admit that you are shutting down the government because you are poor sports?
 

IrishOne

Mayor
Yes! I vote for impeachment! Get Boehner out! Can we impeach ALL the Republicans, or just the Tea party?

Plus gives him a great campaign talking point. Hopefully the Wingers will go full out and try an impeachment again, totally destroying their 2012 Presidential hopes.
 

IrishOne

Mayor
Nice try. Obstructionist governence simply means that the GOTP is irrelevant, and they have to resort to archaic games and brinkmanship; they don't have a game plan, just the Party of NO.

You can have all the NO VOTES in November; that's what you'll get.
 

Corruptbuddha

Governor
Obstruction, impertinence, outright hatred.

All irrelevant.

For what ever reason, Obama can't get it done.

Time for a change.
 
Top