Recess appointments? Now why would Obama do that? Isn't it clear in the
constitution that CONGRESS must approve his appointments? Drat the constitution!
While I think that it is important to finnay get court clarefication on this
issue he republicans would do well to remember that idf they ever manage to get
another president in office they will be bound by his same ruling the next time
they attempt the same thing.
@ Mountanman: Perhaps this will answer your question: US Constitution, Article
II, Section 2, Clause 3, "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."Oh, snap! Apparently the Constitution allows for recess appointments.
Drats!The question the Supreme Court will address is what
constitutes "the recess"?And for the record, Reagan made 240
recess appointments, G.H.W. Bush made 77, Clinton 140, G.W. Bush 171, as of May
29, 2013 Obama has made 32.
Mountanman,If you want to tout the Constitution, then you need to do
a better job reading it. It is literally written in the document that POTUS can
make recess appointments. George Washington was the first to do it. Please,
know your facts before you file your typical partisan complaint.
Kalinda and Claudio. "At issue for the Supreme Court: What constitutes a
congressional recess and does it matter when a vacancy occurs?" I never said
Presidents can't make appointments, but if this is so historically and
constitutionally clear cut, why is the SCOTUS hearing the case? Darn
@ Mountanman: FYI - Everyone can read your previous post. You
stated, and I quote, "Recess appointments? Now why would Obama do that?
Isn't it clear in the constitution that CONGRESS must approve his
appointments? Drat the constitution! Drat it!"As one who
understands basic English, this is clearly a question of the Constitutionality
of recess appointments.If you had stated something along the lines
of, "Obama did not make recess appointments because the Senate was not in
recess," that would have been more inline with the actual question before
the Court and your second comment.
There's a lot of gamesmanship that goes on in Washington D.C. The big
difference is that prior presidents have played the game, including their
manipulation of circumstances, within the parameters of the constitution.
President Obama seems less interested in the silly games and the silly
constitution, so he just does what he wants and then cries about partisanship if
anyone disagrees with him or tries to hold him accountable to the rules. As
reported in another article, his administration's record in Supreme Court
rulings is abysmal, showing his general disregard for the constitution.
@mountain man You do know we can read all the previous comments on
this thread rights? Not only did you lie about your first commet you also either
did not comprehend what kaliendra said was the reason for the review or you
intentionally misrepresented it, so which is it poor reading comprehension or
trouble with the truth?
@ Spring Street. Kindly read the article, then my comments. It will really help
@DSBSo let me see if i understand your reasoning, it is not a
blatant disregard of the intent of the "silly constitution" for
congressional leaders to use a procedural move to call congress into session for
one minute each day that would normally be a recess for congress but Obama is
showing a disregard for the "silly constitution" when he makes
appointments during the time congress should be in recess? interesting logic but
I am not sure I am buying it. As spring street already stated republicans might
want to remember any future republican president is going to be bound by what
ever court ruling comes down and given our political climate I would suspect
democrats will likely be happy to return the favor.
@mountain man Read the article read the comments. Did not adress or
change my previous question. Have you read the article or your own previous
comments? There is a real disconnect between them.
@Tolstoy - I never said the games being played conform to the intent of the
constitution. If they did, they would not be games but rather merely following
the letter and spirit of the law. The games referenced in the article follow
the letter only, in a manipulated manner that is probably a violation of the
spirit of the constitution.Wiley politicians create games by making
use of technicalities to advance their agenda and thwart their political
opposition. Wake up - as the article states, they ALL do it, and I suppose
that's one reason politicians are typically depicted in caricature as slick
and untrustworthy. While other presidents have at least shown enough
respect for the Constitution to abide the letter of the law through adherence to
rules of even the silly games, Obama clearly thinks he's above both the
spirit and letter of the constitution. He plays the game as long as he gets his
way, which abides the letter of the constitution even if sometimes not the
spirit, but when he can't get his way, he doesn't even play the game,
violating the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Spring street,I guess you missed the part of the article saying bush made
no recess appointments when the senate was gone, but technically in session.Kalindra,Thank you for citing the section of the constitution BO
violated by making a recess appointment while the senate was technically in
session.Scoundrel,You mean the silly technical games harry
reid played while bush was in office? Why is it a silly game when repubs do it
but not when dems do it?