Pelosi "Proud" of Obama for Ignoring Constitution
- Thread starter Old Ridge Runner
- Start date
GordonGecko
President
Just to be clear, the case that he "ignored the Constitution" is....because the Senate was in session for THIRTY SECONDS one day, not even when he made the recess appointments.
Right?
Right?
Al Ponzi
Council Member
Obama broke the law and (g)libs don't care. Pelosi is a
ing lunatic and clearly stupid as hell. Yet these idiots will tell you Bachman is the one that is nuts. Libs can't defend so they attack conservatives and blame Bush.
Obama won't be running against Bush so I suggest they change their narrative it's ignorant.
They would never say what they say here in public, bunch of
ing dummies. Especially Gordy, and Bo.
Obama won't be running against Bush so I suggest they change their narrative it's ignorant.
They would never say what they say here in public, bunch of
GordonGecko
President
Ponzi, if he's broken the law...then your Speaker, Mr. Boehner, MUST enact impeachment bills against him as soon as Congress is back in session...mustn't he???
OldGaffer
Governor
There is no law, it was just a precedent, no harm, no foul.
GordonGecko
President
Again, if it's "illegal"...and Republicans "don't stand for illegalty in a President"...
then Boehner will bring up bills of impeachment as soon as he's back at the job.....uh.....right???? Hello? Foxers? Ditto-heads? Drudgeries???
then Boehner will bring up bills of impeachment as soon as he's back at the job.....uh.....right???? Hello? Foxers? Ditto-heads? Drudgeries???
888888
Council Member
what law has he broken? How did he break the law? Was congress ever in session with a quorum to do business? Is this not the little boy(congress) wants to take his ball and go home because he can't make the rules as he wants them.
888888
Council Member
wha! wha! wha! is your milk too warm big guy?
lupehernandezdepedajack
Mayor
Just one question for ya... How many recess appointments did Bush make while Reid conducted his Proforma Sessions???
Even a slimeball that expects others to live by their rules should be subject to the same rules.. But we are talking about Democrats if you scrape the slime up real good you might even be able to see Reid and Obama way down underneath it all
imreallyperplexed
Council Member
De facto and de jure
Ridge Runner,
This has been a brewing confrontation that both parties are involved with. Democrats vehemently objected to Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton (among others) and Harry Reid came up with the "recess ploy" that the Republicans are now using to make it more difficult for GWB to make recess appointments that they were filibustering.
The real thing at stake involves de facto and de jure interpretations.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact."
In this case, the crucial question is what constitutes a recess. Obama is insisting that "in practice," the Senate is in recess despite the parliamentary maneuver. (Bush could have chosen to challenge Reid in this fashion as well but chose not to for whatever reason.) McConnell is insisting that "in law," the Senate is not in recess.
This case is going to court and the courts will decide between de facto and de jure. This has ALWAYS been the legitimate role of the court. Given the time that it takes for things to work their way through the courts, Cordray will be in office through the 2012 elections.
The courts will decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional and that will set a precedent for future situations.
Ridge Runner,
This has been a brewing confrontation that both parties are involved with. Democrats vehemently objected to Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton (among others) and Harry Reid came up with the "recess ploy" that the Republicans are now using to make it more difficult for GWB to make recess appointments that they were filibustering.
The real thing at stake involves de facto and de jure interpretations.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact."
In this case, the crucial question is what constitutes a recess. Obama is insisting that "in practice," the Senate is in recess despite the parliamentary maneuver. (Bush could have chosen to challenge Reid in this fashion as well but chose not to for whatever reason.) McConnell is insisting that "in law," the Senate is not in recess.
This case is going to court and the courts will decide between de facto and de jure. This has ALWAYS been the legitimate role of the court. Given the time that it takes for things to work their way through the courts, Cordray will be in office through the 2012 elections.
The courts will decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional and that will set a precedent for future situations.
lupehernandezdepedajack
Mayor
(Bush could have chosen to challenge Reid in this fashion as well but chose not to for whatever reason.)
It just exemplifies that the bar can not go too low for Democrat Sleeze
It just exemplifies that the bar can not go too low for Democrat Sleeze
imreallyperplexed
Council Member
Both sides play the same sorry games. McConnell could have chosen not to follow the precedent that Reid set. (Two wrongs do not make a right.)
lupehernandezdepedajack
Mayor
Gotta disagree with you there.. Reid instituted proforma policy and Bush complied..Well when it comes time for the Obama to comply he said to hell with the Senate I am the Dicktater around here. The outcry now is nothing compared to what the pirhana feeding frenzy would have been had Bush decided to go ahead and make recess appointments during a proforma session.. You know this is true yet you defend the sleeze
a w, f u c k y o u. F u c k , f u c k, f u c k . . . L o l
