impeachable crime?

[eisely]

President Obama's recent "recess" appointments clearly violate the constitution. Anybody worried about that?

[scoutingagain]

You mean the same type George Bush did while he was in office and Bill Clinton did while he was in office?

 

 

SA

[SR540Beaver]

Actually, Harry Reid used the "pro forma sessions" to keep from being in recess to block recess appointments by Bush. Funny how NOW it is a different story isn't it? Some folks respect the process, some don't and some use it strictly to their advantage.

[Eamonn]

SR540Beaver

I kinda think you know as well as I do that what we have here is politics as normal.

You might be a little off base when you post: "clearly violate the constitution."

So far this has never been challenged.

I very much doubt if the Republicans will challenge it. As to do so would add fuel to the President saying that he is doing something about jobs and unemployment while they are doing their best to stop it from happening.

I think maybe the big banks might wait till something they don't like happens and then they might challenge the appointment.

Ea.

 

[Beavah]

I think this is da typical modern Republican tempest in a teapot. They all vote for indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil with no judicial process, but they're goin' to make a stink about recess appointments?

 

Honestly, da malicious obstructionism of Congress using what should be "advice and consent" so as to cripple the government by leaving whole federal departments and boards leaderless or with less than a quorum is unconscionable. Federal vacancies should be filled by the President and approved by Congress within 3 months, period.

 

Now personally I reckon that perennial obstruction of government services through mindless partisan blocking of appointments is sorta like terrorism, eh? Perhaps da President should simply order da military to detain all the obstructionists of both parties and ship 'em to Gitmo for indefinite detention. Throw in some waterboarding for the congressman who endorse it. I don't reckon even torture opponents would object. Da Congress is doin' lots more damage to the Republic than any of the current Gitmo detainees, and it would be poetic justice for their lack of Constitutional understanding.

 

Beavah

 

[eisely]

This from the Investor's Business Daily:

 

"President Obama's nonrecess "recess appointments" can't be excused as over-the-top electioneering. This president has crossed over from socialistic extremism into lawlessness and, perhaps, impeachability.

 

The U.S. Constitution established a strong presidency so strong that even one of the most esteemed founding fathers, Patrick Henry, worried it would be kinglike. But this week saw a president exceed even those broad constitutional powers because doing so fits his election-year narrative of a "do-nothing Congress" so well.

 

Now we have the makings of a banana republic, where the rule of clearly written constitutional law is compromised by a ruler's subjective whim.

 

The Constitution is crystal clear on the recess appointment authority of the president.

 

"The president shall have power," Article II, section 2 states, "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."

 

The Senate has not been in recess. And Congress' authority over when it is and isn't in recess is no small matter of parliamentary procedure. Rather, it is a power the Framers explicitly bestowed in Article I, Section 5:

 

"Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

 

Yet Obama on Wednesday, with no recess in effect and against the publicly stated position of his own Justice Department, made four "recess appointments."

 

The GOP-majority House has been keeping Congress in session, using its lawful power to prevent Obama from steamrolling someone into the CFPB position outside the usual Senate confirmation process because, as House Speaker John Boehner explained Wednesday, "the agency it heads is bad for jobs and bad for the economy."

 

Some may say these are small-potato government jobs not worth a big confrontation. But if a president can trample the Constitution on these appointments, the door opens for similar abuses of power with Cabinet secretaries and judicial nominations.

 

As Boehner warned, "The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution."

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., until recently agreed with the Obama and Clinton Justice Departments and with just about every other legal expert, liberal, conservative and middle of the road that presidents have to wait for Congress to be out of session three days before legally making a recess appointment.

 

Now he thinks what Obama has done is great, as does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Why?

 

Again, because they think it makes Obama and the Democrats look like they're taking on a mean, obstructionist Congress during an election year.

 

What Obama, with Reid, Pelosi and congressional Democrats in tow, is really taking on, though, is the Constitution and one of the things that keeps America civilized and free: the rule of law.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recognizes this as a constitutional crisis in which Obama "arrogantly circumvented the American people" and "fundamentally endangers the Congress' role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch."

 

Obama claims he has "an obligation as president to do what I can without them," referring to Congress.

 

But the Constitution, which Obama took an oath to preserve, protect and defend, says he can't.

 

The "I" word I for impeachment might not yet be on Washingtonian lips, but it might be soon."

 

___________________________

 

It would not surprise me to see articles of impeachment submitted by one or more members of the house of representatives over this, but it won't go anywhere - the actual election is now basically ten months away.

 

It is correct that Bush made some recess appointments, but the senate was actually in recess. Perhaps Bush should not have done so, but nobody questioned the constitutionality of his appointments. This senate has not been in recess. That is why I put "recess" in scare quotes in my initial post.

 

The entire business of recess appointments shoud probably be removed from the constitution through amendment. When the constitution was written the ability to make recess appointments was incorporated for very good reasons. With today's ability to convene the legislature quickly and frequently, the original rationale is clearly obsolete. As we have now seen, a president who cares not one whit about the constitution has now taken it upon himself to ignore the constitution for purely political gain.

 

For the record, I find the language in the defense appropriation bill about detention of US citizens even within the the boundaries of the US by the military quite troublesome. I wonder if Obama will use this as an excuse to round up opponents and critics and ignore habeus (sp?) corpus too.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Was the Senate adjourned? Answer - they had adjourned, which means they were in recess - in this case, an "intrasession recess", which is a recess of the Senate during a "session" of the Senate. So what is a "session" of the Senate? It's the two-year period a particular Congress is empowered to meet. Right now, the 112th Congress is in session - they started in January 2010 and the session will be completed when they officially adjourn the session before the new Congress (next up, the 113th) takes office. A recess between sessions of Congress is an "intercession recess".

 

Does the Constitution make any distinction between an intercession recess and an intracession recess? Answer - no, it does not. A recess is a recess is a recess. Presidents have made both intersession and intrasession appointments in the past. Though none have made any intrasession appointments during adjournments of under 11 days before, the decision by those Presidents not to make appointments during that time does not prevent any subsequent President from doing so.

 

Does the Constitution say anything about a minimum amount of time the Senate needs to be in recess before the President can exercise his powers under the Constitution to make a recess appointment? Answer - No. There have been "intersession" recess appointments made in recess periods of under 3 days in the past. There is no reason to believe that intrasession recess appointments can't be made in periods of under 3 days as well. Does that mean that a President can potentially make a recess appointment if the Senate adjourns for the night? Answer - yes - but it's unlikely anyone will try it, though Theodore Roosevelt did make a very large number of intersession recess appointments when the Senate had adjourned between sessions for under 24-hours.

 

When Reid was holding pro-forma sessions to block Bush from appointing people during recess, did that really set precedent? Answer - Only in the Bush Administration, which refused to challenge what was then, and still is now, a questionable tactic by the Senate, even though the Bush Administration said such pro-forma sessions didn't block them from making recess appointments. Bush failed to challenge - his failure doesn't bind the hands of a subsequent administration, just as the opinion of the Clinton Justice Department that a 3-day recess isn't long enough to allow the President to make a recess appointment doesn't bind the hands of a subsequent administration.

 

So much for "clearly" violating the Constitution.

 

Obama, who folks need to remember taught Constitutional Law, is challenging the Senate's actions - and rightfully so. If the Senate wishes to challenge, their recourse is the courts, which I'd guess may punt by claiming it's a "political issue" and not an issue for the courts to decide.

 

By the way, my source of information is the Congressional Research Office (the fellows that work for Congress), which has a nice FAQ on recess appointments available online, not an editorial writer for Investors Business Daily who couldn't be bothered to check to see if he was stating fact when he said the Senate isn't in recess (it clearly is in intrasession recess, and had they bothered to check, would have discovered that intrasession recess appointments have been made by Presidents in the past - so much for the fact checking abilities of the press - I wonder what else Investors Business Daily get's wrong - I think I'd be worried about taking any of their advice right about now).

 

Also, before I'm accused of just being pro-Obama, had President Bush challenged Harry Reid back when Harry came up with this scheme in the first place, I would have been supporting President Bush, for all the reasons stated above.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[Lisabob]

Perhaps if the Senate would get off its duff and do its job by holding votes on nominees for critical offices, we wouldn't be going down this road now.

 

The problem with this particular appointment is that some sore losers who didn't want this bill passed in the first place, have determined that they'll actively prevent implementation of the laws that passed, rather than accepting that they lost this time. This is not good governance and it isn't very (small-d) democratic. Use the actual legislative process or the judicial process - or public pressure (elections) to make changes, but don't actively seek to sabotage existing laws.

 

When Senator McConnell claims that Obama has "arrogantly circumvented the American people" I wonder what he's thinking? Here McConnell is, trying to circumvent a duly passed law, simply because he doesn't like it. Pot, meet kettle?

[SMT224]

My worry is that the partisan rift in America is become so intensive that some have made party is first, country second. What an elected leaders does seems to be judged entirely on party affiliation. It's unfortunate that substance counts less that party. If Obama were a Republican, most of what he has done would be applauded by the GOP.

[eisely]

Two points:

 

When Bush made recess appointments, the media was all over it denouncing him. Now the liberal mainstream media thinks its just great.

 

The law in question establishing this new regulatory agency, stipulates that before the agency becomes fully independent from the Treasury, the director must be confirmed by the Senate. I believe that is Section 1066. So anything that Cordray does is subject to legal challenge.

 

It is not just a matter of being sore losers. Any law carrying the names of Dodd and Frank claiming to be financial reform is highly highly suspect. Of all the politicians of either party, Dodd and Frank bear the most blame for the financial collapse of 2008. It was passed before the 2010 election with essentially no support from the republicans. So we shall see what happens. I think consumers will be very upset when they see how much this new regulatory boondoggle will cost them, if it gets that far.

[SR540Beaver]

For a little perspective on the hypocritical nature of this issue.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/202335-reids-backs-obama-for-ignoring-pro-forma-sessions-he-once-pushed

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who previously held pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush, said Wednesday he supported President Obama's decision to ignore those sessions to push through one of his key nominees.

 

"I support President Obama's decision," he said in a statement.

 

"The White House announced Wednesday that Obama planned to recess appoint Richard Cordray to be director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). However, Republicans immediately cried foul about the move. They argue that because the holiday break has been broken up by brief pro forma sessions, the Senate is not in recess and the appointment is illegitimate....."

 

".....However, the White House maintains that those sessions, typically held every three days and lasting a few seconds, are not legitimate and can be ignored for the purpose of making recess appointments......"

 

"......On the other side of the argument at that time was Reid, who began holding pro forma sessions in 2007 to block Bush nominees.

 

"I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made," he said on the Senate floor in 2008, as Democrats blocked a potential recess appointment of Steven Bradbury to be the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration........"

(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[Lisabob]

"It was passed before the 2010 election with essentially no support from the republicans."

 

Yep, but so what. The point is that it passed fair and square - and Senators are supposed to honor their own, binding, laws. Don't like them? Fine - change them. Til then, the law is the law, no matter whose name is on the "sponsor" line. If one seriously has nothing better than "yeah but I don't like/trust/agree with the guys who sponsored it!" then yes, one does sound like a sore loser.

 

And by the way, the Washington Post -that bastion of liberalism - published an op-ed decrying the recess appointments. Politico (another media outlet frequently considered left-wing) ran a piece questioning the wisdom of these appointments. So much for your mainstream media argument.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Eammon: "I very much doubt if the Republicans will challenge it. As to do so would add fuel to the President saying that he is doing something about jobs and unemployment while they are doing their best to stop it from happening."

 

The press isn't doing their job to report the truth of the matter. I've copied this from a friends post on a political forum I frequent. I apologize for the length, but the length tells the story of what the Republicans have tried to do for jobs and the economy to only be obstructed by the Democrats.

 

 

 

Have Congressional Republicans Done Anything to Help With Jobs and the Economy?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've heard a lot of people say "the reps have done nothing to help with jobs but obstruct obama" and i've heard others respond to this claim "you are lying"

 

Well I think the Republicans have tried to pass bills to help the economy and jobs. Why do I think this? I think this because I actually researched what bills the republicans have passed out of the house. The majority of these are stalled in the Democrat senate sitting on Harry Reid's desk.

 

ALL THESE CAN BE VERIFIED HERE http://www.house.gov/

 

Rep Bills That Empower Small Business Owners

Small business owners are being bogged down by burdensome regulations from Washington that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. We must remove onerous regulations that are redundant, harm small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation.

 

Review of Federal Regulations

H.Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011

 

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act

H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Energy Tax Prevention Act

H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations

H.J.Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52

 

Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act

H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act

H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act

H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on The Nation

H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act

H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

EPA Regulatory Relief Act

H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act

H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Regulatory Accountability Act

H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act

H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

REINS Act

H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date

Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act

H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Rep Bills to Try and Fix Fix The Tax Code To Help Job Creators

Americas tax code has grown too complicated and cumbersome. We need a tax code that is flatter, fairer, and simpler to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, lessen the burden on families, generate economic expansion, and create jobs by making America more competitive.

 

Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act

H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011

 

3% Withholding Rule Repeal

H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011

 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act

H.R. 3630 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Rep Bills Aimed At Increasing Competitiveness for U.S. Manufacturers

The more that American businesses export, the more they produce. The more businesses produce, the more workers they need. This means job creation. Expanding market access for U.S. made products will be a shot in the arm for businesses small and large and will create jobs.

 

U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act

H.R. 3078 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

 

U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act

H.R. 3079 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

 

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

H.R. 3080 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

 

Southeast Arizona Resource Utilization & Conservation Act

H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Rep Bills to Encourage Entrepreneurship and Growth

America has historically been on the cutting edge of innovation and technological development, but we are increasingly falling behind our global competitors. We must make it easier for existing businesses to grow and allow more start-up companies to flourish.

 

The America Invents Act

H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President on September 16, 2011

 

Veterans Opportunity to Work Act

H.R. 2433 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011

 

Small Company Capital Formation Act

H.R. 1070 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Small Banks' Access to Capital Act

H.R. 1965 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act

H.R. 2930 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Access to Capital for Job Creators Act

H.R. 2940 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act

H.R. 3012 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Rep Bills Maximize Domestic Energy Production

The energy sector is crucial to our economic growth, and high energy costs have a major impact on job creation. We need policies that allow us to harness our abundant supply of natural resources in America, develop new sources of energy, and create jobs here at home.

 

Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act

H.R. 1230 - Senate has taken no action to date

Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act

H.R. 1229 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Reversing President Obamas Offshore Moratorium Act

H.R. 1231 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011

H.R. 2021 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

North American-Made Energy Security Act

H.R. 1938 - Senate has taken no action to date

 

Pay Down America's Unsustainable Debt Burden by Passing an Actual Budget!

The federal government is spending and borrowing so much that the United States will soon go broke. Washingtons spending binge has put our nation in debt, eroded economic confidence, and caused massive uncertainty for private sector job creators. It's time to live within our means.

 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2012

H.Con.Res. 34 - Senate has not yet considered a budget of its own

 

[scoutingagain]

Here's what Bush's legal team had to say about these non-recess recesses;

 

"Lawyers for this White House and for past administrations, including most recently with President George W. Bush, have argued that the use of "pro forma" sessions is merely a legislative sham designed to rob the executive branch of its powers.

 

Two Bush-era lawyers, John Elwood and Steven Bradbury, called such a strategy "phony" in a 2010 Washington Post op-ed, and said, "The president can use this power to fill a vacancy during any recess between sessions of Congress as well as recesses during sessions of Congress, if they are of substantial length."

 

The two cite a 1905 memo published by the Senate Judiciary Committee in which the panel sought to define a recess, saying one occurs whenever the Senate cannot "participate as a body in making appointments." The committee cautioned that a "recess" means "something actual, not something fictitious."

 

But keep in mind this is the same legal brain trust that argued water boarding was simply an "enhanced interogation technique" .

 

The irony of this appointment would be amusing if it didn't represent the ongoing dysfunction and partisanship of Washington politics. The Republicans are using the same tactic the Democrats used during the Bush administration and the Obama administration is using the legal argument made by Bush era legal staff to overide it.

 

The additional irony is that Obama's preferred candidate was Elizabeth Warren who is now in a neck and neck race for the Senate seat held by Scott Brown®. I'll bet Senator Brown wishes they had let Elizabeth just have this appointment. A shame really because I like Brown and I think he'll end up being a footnote in Senate politics.

 

SA

 

 

 

SA

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

And yesterday Scott Brown (R-MA)announced that he supports Cordray's appointment. I guess that calls into question his Republican bona fides.