January 04, 2012

No Seriously Obama's Gone Full-Rogue Unconstitional
— Ace

Drew covered this earlier, but I don't see the harm in noting it again.

But since unconstitutionally appointing Richard Cordray this morning, he's gone ahead and illegally purported to appoint three people to the NLRB.

David Fredoso discusses the illegality here.

Obama claiming that he can decide for Congress when it is and is not in recess is pretty much the same as Congress deciding if Obama has or has not signed a law.

It's not "just a formality" when a branch of government exercises its actual legal rights and responsibilities.

Yes, this is a political dispute. Of course it is. But the Constitution specifies that these recess appointments -- afterthoughts, really -- can be made: During a declared recess of Congress.

Posted by: Ace at 01:48 PM | Comments (442)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

1 First?

Posted by: Ducatisti at January 04, 2012 01:50 PM (KYE7u)

2 He still is a SCOAMF though. And why exactly should I be surprised?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 04, 2012 01:51 PM (0q2P7)

3 Whew! More proof that Barky is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: Ducatisti at January 04, 2012 01:51 PM (KYE7u)

4 So.

He and his buds in Congress are just blatantly ignoring the law and the Constitution now.

Assuming the Keystone Candidates can even pull it together, I can't think he won't lie, cheat, and steal his way to re-election.

Suggestions anymore?  Because the only ones I've got left ain't so hot...

Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez! at January 04, 2012 01:52 PM (GBXon)

5 And the Republicans will do...nothing.

Posted by: Eloquence at January 04, 2012 01:52 PM (29T98)

6 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:52 PM (8y9MW)

7

I was just reading up on these moves by Barky. F'n amazing. And ole Hairy Reed is backing him up, past history notwithstanding.

Can their plan even work? How hard will the MSM work to cover for him?

 

In other news, SCOAML Jr is going back in front of Issa's committee.

Posted by: Ducatisti at January 04, 2012 01:53 PM (KYE7u)

8 If it's for my precious union money laundering machine, it's just fine. Now, off you go to watch MSDNC.

Posted by: Obama at January 04, 2012 01:53 PM (O7ksG)

9

Constitutional Scholar.

Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2012 01:53 PM (q/q9Y)

10 So laws aren't laws if nobody's going to do anything about them.

Nobody wants to start an impeachment in an election year -- thus, there are no impeachable offenses. Nobody defunds an agency because it's being run like a crime syndicate -- there are no limits to what agencies can do.

It's stuff like this that raises my blood pressure.

Posted by: cthulhu at January 04, 2012 01:53 PM (kaalw)

11 If Congressional Republicans don't do everything in their power to thwart this skid-mark of a President from actually succeeding in this usurpation of Congressional Authority, they deserve to lose.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:53 PM (8y9MW)

12

So, is anyone bothering to stand up and say, "You can't do that, you stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure."?

If Scott Brown did it, I might work for his re-election.

Posted by: fluffy at January 04, 2012 01:54 PM (3SvjA)

13 Less than shocked: GM Bondholders

Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2012 01:54 PM (q/q9Y)

14 Why wouldn't he do this?  The only recourse is impeachment, and he knows no one will do that.  He is most likely going to lose in November, so he isn't afraid of not getting elected.  He is free to cause as much damage as he wants (he sees it as implementing his vision for America, but it amounts to the same thing).

Posted by: mrshad at January 04, 2012 01:54 PM (Xqfwb)

15 So, is anyone bothering to stand up and say, "You can't do that, you stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure."?

No.  Remember, opposing Obama is "mean" or some crap.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:54 PM (8y9MW)

16 Constitutional Scholar Scatter

fify

Posted by: S Daniel at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (F40+0)

17 This is why I say that women NEVER pay for their crimes like men do.

Posted by: Vote for Me. I'm a Millionaire at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (xqpQL)

18 "...thwart this skid-mark of a President..."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney

I resent that remark.

Posted by: That Skidmark in Your Underwear at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (BbX1b)

19 When Obama interprets the living breathing document, it's always for our own good. You should be thanking him, but you can't see past the color of his skin

Get over your inbred Jesus loving hatred and trust in your betters


Posted by: Leff T Dusche at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (Y+DPZ)

20 Now, if we are really, really super-clever, we won't fight with Obama over this. That's exactly what he wants. In fact we ought to encourage him to make a dozen more recess appointments, and help him to think of a dozen more. The ways of Republican discipline are strange and marvelous, Grasshopper.

Posted by: The old zen master on the Republican Mountain at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (AZGON)

21 Less than shocked: Honduras

Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (q/q9Y)

22 Speaking of the NRLB:  here's a job posting by them.

http://tinyurl.com/7ont5r5

Apply, I dare you.

Re-roll as a progressive libtard, and feed the hungry with juicy tidbits...

Do you want to...
"Become a part of a prestigious and elite Agency created by Congress in 1935, to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law for relations between unions and employers in the private sector. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent Federal agency that has daily impact on the way America's companies, industries and unions conduct business."

Of course you do!

Posted by: DestroyFromWithin at January 04, 2012 01:55 PM (/MuFf)

23

This just shows what I've thought for a long time: The rules are whatever the fuck the Democrats/Left says that they are. Nothing more and nothing less.

This country is fucking over.

Posted by: LGoPs at January 04, 2012 01:56 PM (+Uv5V)

24 This all ends in murder, you know.

Posted by: toby928© feels pessimistic at January 04, 2012 01:56 PM (GTbGH)

25 Arrogant?  Ignorant?  Probably a lot of both.

Posted by: Dang at January 04, 2012 01:56 PM (BbX1b)

26

Labor unions, whose relationship with Obama had been strained recently, cheered the move.

 

 

Posted by: drowningpuppies at January 04, 2012 01:57 PM (012vu)

27 The hell with the politicians; What are WE-THE-PEOPLE going to do about this?! Can you say, "constitutional crisis?" Someone has to make this bastard pay for the end runs around, let alone utter disregard and contempt for, the sacred Constitution of the United States - which he swore to preserve, protect and defend. This will not end well for us, whether we knuckle under and crawl or stand up.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 01:57 PM (UlUS4)

28 The only recourse is impeachment, and he knows no one will do that.  He is most likely going to lose in November, so he isn't afraid of not getting elected.

Actually, I'm beginning to see it as the political equivalent of Sherman's March to the Sea.  Every time he does something like this, and the Republicans just sit and wring their hands or (worse) stay silent, the base becomes a little more demoralized.  What's the point in electing them if they won't actually act as checks against his unconstitutional usurpation of power, after all?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 01:57 PM (8y9MW)

29 The only argument left is one that the Obama administration has ... I won.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 04, 2012 01:57 PM (r2PLg)

30 5 And the Republicans will do...nothing. Posted by: Eloquence at January 04, 2012 05:52 PM

Don't you understand? The media will be mean to us, stop inviting us to the Sunday Morning shows everyone in America watches, and they'll make me cry

Posted by: John Boehner at January 04, 2012 01:57 PM (Y+DPZ)

31 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 05:57 PM (8y9MW) THIS.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 01:58 PM (UlUS4)

32 This would under normal circumstances cause a crescendo of shrieking of voices and rapid hair removal, but we're talking about The Nobel Peace Killer of Osama here people!

We should be thanking him and his lovely, er, FLOTUS



 

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2012 01:58 PM (HBqDo)

33 [...] and they'll make me cry

John, my goldfish can make you cry.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 04, 2012 01:59 PM (bjRNS)

34 It's stuff like this that raises my blood pressure.
Posted by: cthulhu

Second look at Azathoth?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 04, 2012 01:59 PM (0q2P7)

35 Second look at Azathoth?

Team Meteor.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at January 04, 2012 01:59 PM (bjRNS)

36 I'm probably going to be barfing for the next few weeks watching the media act like this is no big deal.  That's assuming they even act like it happened at all.

Posted by: Dang at January 04, 2012 01:59 PM (BbX1b)

37 It's a virtual recess appointment.  It's in the Commerce Clause.  Look it up.

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at January 04, 2012 02:00 PM (QKKT0)

38 Meanwhile the media has no problem with an Imperial Warmonger President Trampling the Constitution™ because he's their boyfriend.

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at January 04, 2012 02:00 PM (ijjAe)

39 Where's chubby Meggie Mac declaring the "bedlam" that will ensue from these unconstitutional appointments?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 04, 2012 02:00 PM (gA69l)

40 Not. surprised. at. all. 

Posted by: Dblwmy at January 04, 2012 02:00 PM (BvTwT)

41 Hmm.

Posted by: The Mayans at January 04, 2012 02:00 PM (QKKT0)

42 What's the point in electing them if they won't actually act as checks against his unconstitutional usurpation of power, after all?

The only recourse is impeachment. That will never fly in the Senate. They are truly powerless as long as the dems are willing to do anything to get what they want.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 04, 2012 02:00 PM (0q2P7)

43

Aloha, hoales..., 

Barry

Posted by: drowningpuppies at January 04, 2012 02:01 PM (012vu)

44 Why not take him to court? I don't see the downside. Yeah the Court may punt BUT it'll get in the newstream for awhile as the case proceeds.

We've got to stop NOT doing things because we think we won't win. It's the FIGHT that's important.

To stand up for what is right, what is in the constitution.

Of course Boehner has the guts or will to do anything in the first place but OTHER Reps or Sens could file.

Impeachment isn't in it YET.

Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 02:01 PM (xqpQL)

45 Meanwhile the media has no problem with an Imperial Warmonger President Trampling the Constitution™ because he's their boyfriend.

Remember when that term referred to a guy who wouldn't fight Congress over just about anything, and gave in to just about everything they wanted because their party had drubbed his party in a mid-term election?

Good times.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:02 PM (8y9MW)

46 You have to keep covering this because the mfm wants to ignore it and hope it goes away. This scoamf has been saying he wants to find ways to go around congress for months and this is what he came up with? I thought he was going to try and find ways to spend more money or implement regulations via the czars and various agencies, but this is what he came up with? A frontal assault on the Constitution? All this bastard is trying to do is wreck the place. Nothing he has done has made any "sense" in relation to its stated purpose whether it be the stimulus, obamacare, or withdrawl from Iraq. Everything he has done has had a lasting, negative impact on the long run prospects for the country. I hate conspiracy theories and alarmism but this has to be stopped here and he has to go.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 02:02 PM (loM0R)

47  I have not yet begun to bite!

Posted by: That Union Thug Who Bit Off The Tea Party Guy's Finger at January 04, 2012 02:02 PM (BbX1b)

48

Of course, the odds iof this borderline criminal getting re-elected is about 50/50.  How frakked up is that?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 04, 2012 02:02 PM (gA69l)

49 I may be wrong and please correct me if I am, but I do NOT remember President Bush making such a big deal out of his recess appointments like obama did today and making it the headline in one of his appearances?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:03 PM (i6RpT)

50 Time for Boeing to open their plant in South Caroline and tell the gubmint to FUCK OFF.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 02:03 PM (UlUS4)

51 So if they ignore the law and nobody does anything about it, then this whole America thing is 'effectively' over? P.J. O'Rourke said it best: Strange things can happen when the government is more corrupt than you are.

Posted by: Secundus at January 04, 2012 02:03 PM (yg7eI)

52 12 So, is anyone bothering to stand up and say, "You can't do that, you stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure."?

If Scott Brown did it, I might work for his re-election.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:03 PM (d6QMz)

53 Is this grounds for impeachment? At first, I didn't think it was feasable but...who the fuck knows.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:03 PM (zLeKL)

54 Defund every agency that gets a recess appointment.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 04, 2012 02:03 PM (QKKT0)

55 Time for Boeing to open their plant in South Caroline and tell the gubmint to FUCK OFF. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 06:03 PM (UlUS4) Well that got settled so they will be

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (i6RpT)

56
So, is anyone bothering to stand up and say, "You can't do that, you stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure."? If Scott Brown did it, I might work for his re-election.

Posted by: fluffy



Senator Scott Brown — who’s facing a stiff populist challenge from Elizabeth Warren, the creator of the agency — has now come out in support of the move. His statement, sent over by his office:

“I support President Obama’s appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams. While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken. If we’re going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship.”

Wapo


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (3wBRE)

57 Fuck it, I'm beating this drum anyway. Who's with me?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (zLeKL)

58 I find it ironic that this country began with the 'shot heard round the world' Sadly, it seems that it will end with the 'shrug heard round the world'.

Posted by: LGoPs at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (+Uv5V)

59 We could ask the French to lend us that guillotine agin... I understand they're calling Mooch "Excellency" now...

Posted by: Milo at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (1agxt)

60 Let's see, the most lawless administration in any of our lifetimes, a deficit that has exploded to shy of $2T, and the Super Serious IA Caucus Goers™ have decided our choices to replace this disaster are between:

1) The guy who seems determined to put the Republican Seal of Approval on the SCOAMF's agenda.

2) The guy who seems to think all these problems would solve themselves if the icky gays would just go away.

3) The guy who will fix everything by finishing what Hitler started.

Bring on the meteors.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (KI/Ch)

61 Don't worry, The GOP under Skitch McConnell and John "Where's My White Hanky" Boehner have been lying in wait for this exact moment.

......and they'll do it again, and again, and again.

They're good at lying and waiting. 

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2012 02:04 PM (HBqDo)

62 All this bastard is trying to do is wreck the place. He's been doing one hell of a great job at it too Come on interwebz . . . don't let this die! And I agree with a previous poster - this is all part of a multipronged campaign to completely demoralize Americans, especially the centrist and right-leaning ones.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (SB0V2)

63 We're hosed.  The majority of Republicans in Congress care little for anything but their own careers.  They have a few arrows in their quiver that they can use here, but I'm not holding my breath that they will shoot them.  Under the Pay Act, they could refuse to pay recess appointees and they could challenge any action taken by Cordray because his appointmen is flat out illegal given that the "law" that established the (unnecessary) bureaucracy he will over see specifically requires that he be "confirmed by the Senate."  Surely former law professor His Serene Highness Barack Hussein Obama II can grasp that - provided he read the law he signed, of course.  Nah, instead our dear Republican "leaders" will impotently sputter and fume and express their outrage and then crawl back under their rocks in dreaded fear that Obama will paint them as "obstructionist" or "do nothing" and put their jobs in jeopardy.  They will not fight back.  I repeat.  We. Are. Hosed.

Posted by: Natasha at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (jU5uf)

64 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 06:04 PM (3wBRE)

To misquote Inigo Montoya: "I want my money back, you sonofabitch."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (8y9MW)

65 Barry's Hawaii flatworm has now invaded what is left of his brain. Just think of what fun he will invent if he wins this November. ABO 2012. Nothing will stop him if we allow that to happen.

May God help this country, even if we don't deserve it.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (baL2B)

66 Imagine Obama wearing a gold skull cap in that Drudge pic of him, what do you see? Apophis, that's what. Kneel before your god.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (BlMii)

67 #45, The hypocrisy of the media is exactly why I made that crack. The media made everything explicitly legal done by Bush an impeachable offense or at least a massive power grab and defilement of the constitution. Now Obama does something which is actually quite explicitly illegal and or a power grab; the media's response crickets.

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (ijjAe)

68 Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 06:03 PM (i6RpT) Bush's recess appointments were all brought before a vote or expired when the Senate reconvened. I don't even think he had more than a handful. The Dems made sure they had at least one person on the floor to prevent the appointments. SCOAMF is pretending there's a recess when their isn't and just ruling by decree. This guy is a fucking monster. Stupid, yes but a total monster.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 02:05 PM (UlUS4)

69 Dick Cheney last heard beating his dick like Apollo Creed.

Then again, if you guys wanted weak executives, you must've loved the 70s

Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 02:06 PM (LnQhT)

70 39 Where's chubby Meggie Mac declaring the "bedlam" that will ensue from these unconstitutional appointments?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 04, 2012 06:00 PM (gA69l)

She's busy...eating.

Posted by: billygoat at January 04, 2012 02:06 PM (60EzG)

71 "but I do NOT remember President Bush making such a big deal out of his recess appointments like obama did today and making it the headline in one of his appearances?"

Obama is specifically belligerent in provoking a response from the GOP. His reelection efforts hang on the perception of a "battle" with an intransigent congress and alarmist harpies on the right in order to satisfy his base and strengthen his prospects.

Regardless of what the GOP does, they will look bad and hurt their own prospects come November.

The best option is not to fight and hope things get worse.

How's that for Loyal Order of the Terminally Boned?

Posted by: Bob_B at January 04, 2012 02:06 PM (pVvkk)

72 That is "Boehner DOESN'T HAVE THE GUTS"

Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 02:06 PM (xqpQL)

73 You can impeach. You can go to court. But basically if the American people aren't on board -- if the American people don't care about whether the Constitution is followed or not, then we're boned. Right now, one of our major parties and philosophies really does not give a shit about the Constitution. This is true in most places. The Constitution does not have some magical power that makes a people follow it. Putting some ink on a piece of paper doesn't change the country. We used to have something like an agreed upon political religion that violating the Constitution was morally wrong. We just don't have that anymore. Obama is basically saying "So what if it's unconstitutional?" betting that the American people don't care either. He may be right. But if he is, no amount of impeaching or going to court is going to change anything. This is why I like the Tea Party. They care about convincing people on the need for taking the Constitution seriously. Not going to court. Not impeaching. But convincing.

Posted by: chris at January 04, 2012 02:07 PM (dX5s2)

74 "Apophis"

OH

SNAP!

Posted by: Bob_B at January 04, 2012 02:07 PM (niW49)

75 Why are we bothering with this election nonsense?  Can't Obama just decide that the majority of people support him?

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2012 02:07 PM (Hx5uv)

76

Any decision that comes hereafter from that agency should be ignored. When AG Eric "Cock" Holder threatens any action, he should be told to fuck off and dare him to try anything.

BTW, if we have such an activist court, where is some judge to stand up to call bullshit on the SCOAMF? Hell, you'd think CJ John Roberts could at least send him a strongly worded letter that the SCOAMF is in violation of the supreme law of the land, couldn't he?

Shit, somebody's stand up him. If not now, when? How many times does it fucking take?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, CEO Curmudgeons INC. at January 04, 2012 02:07 PM (d0Tfm)

77 Romney is waiting for the poll numbers to get his appealed response.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 04, 2012 02:07 PM (FKQng)

78 I do NOT remember President Bush making such a big deal out of his recess appointments like obama did today and making it the headline in one of his appearances?

John Bolton was the only major recess appointment during W's two terms. Every other recess appointment didn't get much publicity.

Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 02:07 PM (LnQhT)

79 Fast & Furious
Ignoring the War Powers Act in Lybia
'Recess' Appointments
DREAM Act
Czars
Etc

This stuff is starting to add up and tick me off.  For a constitutional scholar, he seems to like breaking it a lot.

Seriously, if the media doesn't spell this out for the uninvolved, and repeat it daily, did it really happen?  I'm coming to the conclusion that our/my side really, really needs to execute a long-term strategy of taking solid financial/editorial control over the MSM sources (ABC, NBC, and CBS to start) and start covering this crap.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 02:08 PM (X/+QT)

80 But its FOR the people! Especially the middle class. SCoaMF mentioned the word "middle class" three times in the written statement. This trumps the constitution.

Posted by: Jimmah at January 04, 2012 02:08 PM (TMeYE)

81 Regardless of what the GOP does, they will look bad and hurt their own prospects come November. --- I agreed with this earlier today, BUT what if we, as conservatives actually rallied around those that would call for impeachment? I mean, do we have any power at all or are we all just here bitching on a blog? Seriously. At some point we're gonna have to go out in the real world and put these principles to use.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:08 PM (zLeKL)

82  So will congress at least have the balls to ignore everything that is remotely connected to Richard Cordray's office?  He has been illegitimately appointed to that office.  Congress should proceed as though it never happened.  Keep asking Obama when he's going to appoint someone.

Richard Cordray?  Never heard of him.

Posted by: Dang at January 04, 2012 02:08 PM (BbX1b)

83 Definitely getting wood.

Posted by: Hugo Chavez at January 04, 2012 02:08 PM (lVGED)

84

They will not fight back.  I repeat.  We. Are. Hosed.

Sometimes I wonder if they even want to stop Obama.

Posted by: Lauren at January 04, 2012 02:08 PM (29T98)

85 I do NOT remember President Bush making such a big deal out of his recess appointments like obama did today and making it the headline in one of his appearances? John Bolton was the only major recess appointment during W's two terms. Every other recess appointment didn't get much publicity. Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 06:07 PM (LnQhT) yes I get that but what I meant is that if I remember correctly it was just a press release not some big political statement like obama today

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (i6RpT)

86 "one of our major parties and philosophies really does not give a shit about the Constitution"

No, they only give a shit about the constitution when a Republican is in the White House.

You know, this partisan Ailinsky stuff really isn't that difficult to keep up with fellas.

Posted by: Bob_B at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (0tRzD)

87 72 That is "Boehner DOESN'T HAVE THE GUTS"

Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 06:06 PM (xqpQL)

Leave me alone...I'm working on legislation to repeal the 'Tan Tax'!

Posted by: BONER! at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (60EzG)

88 Posted by: chris at January 04, 2012 06:07 PM (dX5s2) True - and having a Justice Dept. go along with this makes it that much harder. I fucking hate these people. Honestly. I thought I had none left in me after the Socialized Medicine vote in 2010 but this is really, REALLY stoking a very hot flame in me and countless others I'd wager. I'd hope.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (UlUS4)

89 42 What's the point in electing them if they won't actually act as checks against his unconstitutional usurpation of power, after all?

> The only recourse is impeachment. That will never fly in the Senate. They are truly powerless as long as the dems are willing to do anything to get what they want.


The Senate GOP can also hold-up legislation and nominations. Of course, Obama would seize on that as signs of Republican intransigence, but they can do it. They already have.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (d6QMz)

90 Sometimes I wonder if they even want to stop Obama.

Stop him?  Oh, dearie me, no.  We don't want to stop him.  That would be mean.  And racist.  No, we just want him to slow down a little.

Posted by: Your Republican Congress at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (8y9MW)

91 bow down before the one you serve.
you're going to get what you deserve.
bow down before the one you serve.
you're going to get what you deserve.

Posted by: Barack "Head Like An A-Hole" Obama at January 04, 2012 02:09 PM (84oau)

92 The left only cares about the law or Constitution when they can use either for more power and control to be wielded by the left.

Posted by: BoreGuru at January 04, 2012 02:10 PM (s2bW4)

93

I called my Senators, both Dems., and asked for a statement regarding the recess appointments...

<insert crickets chirping> 

When asked if I had a message for the Senator, I said I don't want to hear any complaints in 2013 when the new President bypasses the Senate.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at January 04, 2012 02:10 PM (C2//T)

94 82  So will congress at least have the balls to ignore everything that is remotely connected to Richard Cordray's office?  He has been illegitimately appointed to that office.  Congress should proceed as though it never happened.  Keep asking Obama when he's going to appoint someone.

Richard Cordray?  Never heard of him.

Posted by: Dang at January 04, 2012 06:08 PM (BbX1b)

--------

Have the capitol police called out when he tries to 'ocupy' the office.  Tresspassing or whatnot.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 02:11 PM (X/+QT)

95 yes I get that but what I meant is that if I remember correctly it was just a press release not some big political statement like obama today

You're right. Only this douchebag would have a campaign speech about political appointments

Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 02:11 PM (LnQhT)

96 Don't worry, we'll keep Barry's feet to the fire. In fact, I said have a good day to him after he did this instead of have a great day. That'll teach him!

Posted by: Mitch McConnell at January 04, 2012 02:11 PM (7BU4a)

97 Actually, I'm beginning to see it as the political equivalent of Sherman's March to the Sea.  Every time he does something like this, and the Republicans just sit and wring their hands or (worse) stay silent, the base becomes a little more demoralized.  What's the point in electing them if they won't actually act as checks against his unconstitutional usurpation of power, after all?

Someone always wins an election, and as a group the politicians understand this so they don't really have to please us to maintain their power as a class. They do need to watch their steps with each other though. Posturing for the voter is fine but actually doing something to hurt your fellow pol will get you punished and limit your path to riches and power so they are more careful of each other than they are of us lowly voters.

How we fight this I'm not at all sure. Mine is just a lowly moron brain afterall.

Posted by: Retread at January 04, 2012 02:11 PM (joSBv)

98 No, they only give a shit about the constitution when a Republican is in the White House.

No, they don't care about it regardless.  If they did, they wouldn't have made up most of the crap they did when Bush was in office.  In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd think their calls of "Unconstitutional!" about everything was at least partially designed to make people think any call of "Unconstitutional!" was "just politics."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:11 PM (8y9MW)

99

Hey, the debt to GDP ratio is now over 100%.  It's time to celebrate!  I am glad that Barry knows all about the profits to earnings ratios.  I know we are in good hands!

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 04, 2012 02:11 PM (jucos)

100 Sure, the constitution doesn't matter anymore.  But the Dodd-Frank bill says the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Czar must be appointed by the senate.  I'm sure they've come up with a new definition of "appoint".

Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 04, 2012 02:12 PM (xXhWA)

101 obama is pretty much just daring the GOP in the house not to extend the payroll tac cut in Feb.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:13 PM (i6RpT)

102 89 The Senate GOP can also hold-up legislation and nominations

That's what the dick's argument is. He's saying that the Senate GOP has already been holding up nominations through the half-fake recess Congress is currently on and is now making up reasons to go against it

Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 02:13 PM (LnQhT)

103
@77

Apparently Mitt saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to chime in:

President ObamaÂ’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is perhaps the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy in the history of our nation, headed by a powerful and unaccountable bureaucrat with unprecedented authority over the economy.

Instead of working with Congress to fix the flaws in this new bureaucracy, the President is declaring that he ‘refuses to take no for an answer’ and circumventing Congress to appoint a new administrator. This action represents Chicago-style politics at its worst and is precisely what then-Senator Obama claimed would be ‘the wrong thing to do.’

Sadly, instead of focusing on economic growth, he is once again focusing on creating more regulation, more government, and more Washington gridlock.

Mitt "Landslide Mittens" Romney


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 02:13 PM (3wBRE)

104 I'm sure they've come up with a new definition of "appoint". Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 04, 2012 06:12 PM (xXhWA) Yeah it's cross reference anal sex

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:13 PM (i6RpT)

105 54 Defund every agency that gets a recess appointment.

Congress defunded four of Obama's czars (among other things) in the omnibus. This was Obama's response:

"The president protested that defunding those positions 'could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials.'”

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:14 PM (d6QMz)

106 Is it time to start the burning yet?

Posted by: Trashcan Man at January 04, 2012 02:14 PM (OOqdh)

107 It's a pretty easy violation to explain to people. That helps.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:14 PM (zLeKL)

108 Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 06:08 PM (X/+QT) SCOAMF only studied the Constitution so he could figure out how to destroy it. Adolf Eichmann learned Hebrew, Yiddish and Jewish culture so he could learn how best to exterminate the Jews.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 02:14 PM (UlUS4)

109 Is it time to start the burning yet?

Probably.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:14 PM (8y9MW)

110 Is it time to start the burning yet? Posted by: Trashcan Man at January 04, 2012 06:14 PM (OOqdh) "Is Paris Burning"?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:15 PM (i6RpT)

111 I'd think their calls of "Unconstitutional!" about everything was at least partially designed to make people think any call of "Unconstitutional!" was "just politics."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:11 PM (8y9MW)

Yup.  When they start making weird accusations, watch out.

Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 04, 2012 02:15 PM (xXhWA)

112 What happens if he show up at the meetings and someone legitimately installed in that position objects? 

Day 1: Gets asked by the other boardmembers, "Were you confirmed?  No?  Was Congress in Recess?  No?  You'll have to leave now."  Maybe calls for him to be physically removed. 

I doubt all of their meetings are open to any unconfirmed person off the street.  If so...Occupy NLRB!  :-D

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 02:16 PM (X/+QT)

113 Say what you will about the "Birthers"; at least they're fighting back.

Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 02:16 PM (xqpQL)

114 It's nice to declare something unconstitutional, but has anyone researched to see if there is any case law on this issue?

Posted by: François Villon at January 04, 2012 02:16 PM (beupG)

115 I wouldn't spend any precious political capital on this, just as we didn't over Sotomeyor and the dike. We must wait til the time is right, and then slit some throats!! Fighting Obama on this is "just what he wants" tm, and will "make us look bad"tm...

Posted by: Ace and Drew at January 04, 2012 02:17 PM (2rpjM)

116 "A nation of laws, not men."

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:17 PM (zLeKL)

117 102 89 The Senate GOP can also hold-up legislation and nominations

> That's what the dick's argument is. He's saying that the Senate GOP has already been holding up nominations through the half-fake recess Congress is currently on and is now making up reasons to go against it


I know (Do Nothing Congress 2.0), but the Senate GOP does not have a lot of options. Reid and Pelosi unsurprisingly already backed Obama, too.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:17 PM (d6QMz)

118 Eric "Cock" Holder

It is to laugh.

Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 02:18 PM (xqpQL)

119 Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 06:16 PM (X/+QT) It presupposes that the actual members of the NLRB will object. Doubtful since they are a big part of the problem.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 02:18 PM (UlUS4)

120 "A nation of laws, not men."

Wait 'til they get a look at me...

Posted by: Barack Obama, Channelling Jack Nicolson's Joker at January 04, 2012 02:18 PM (8y9MW)

121 It presupposes that the actual members of the NLRB will object. Doubtful since they are a big part of the problem. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 06:18 PM (UlUS4) 3 dems and 2 republicans

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:19 PM (i6RpT)

122 If the illegality is in fact cut and dried, I think it's only matter of time before any rulings these Illegals make get tossed by the courts. In the meantime, the GOP candidates need to take time out from flaying each other and to a man condemn this illegality.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 04, 2012 02:19 PM (niZvt)

123

Your resident HR weenie here to tell you that the NLRB will now allow ambush unionization efforts to take place. 

This effectively allows entities with questionable eligibility to particiapate in unionization efforts.  SHRM also thinks that NLRB will also require firms to pony up Excelsior lists in short order when the union stink starts to permeate the plant. 

@108--I didn't know that about Eichmann....that's seriously f'ed up. 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 02:19 PM (Ec6wH)

124 Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 06:19 PM (i6RpT)

Not seeing anything in that reply that says JJ is wrong.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:20 PM (8y9MW)

125

It's not just an unconstitutional act.  It also violates the plain language of the enabling statute, which requires a Senate confirmation.  The Congress doesn't need to bring on a constituional challenge: they can simply wait for Cordray to show up at work on day one and sue in federal court. No impeachment required.

 

In any event, we will now see what balls Boehner really has.  Will he try to defund the NLRB? How about proposing a more restrictive version of the Commerce Clause, in the form of an amendment?  If Obamabi wants to bring on full out conflict, give it to him in unexpected ways.

Posted by: MTF at January 04, 2012 02:20 PM (B5y+v)

126

Not the hill to die on
Overton Window
Election is right around the corner
Blah, de blah blah

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 02:20 PM (3wBRE)

127 "A nation of laws, not men." Obama isn't a man, he's a god king. The rules are different for gods.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:20 PM (BlMii)

128 Well, I told you bitches that I didn't look like all those other guys, didn't I?

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 04, 2012 02:21 PM (niZvt)

129 If the illegality is in fact cut and dried, I think it's only matter of time before any rulings these Illegals make get tossed by the courts. In the meantime, the GOP candidates need to take time out from flaying each other and to a man condemn this illegality. Posted by: CoolCzech at January 04, 2012 06:19 PM (niZvt) from what I read as a layman, the legality is iffy but it will be a waste of time to go to court over this. Cutting off funds seems to be the best way to go.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:21 PM (i6RpT)

130 It presupposes that the actual members of the NLRB will object. Doubtful since they are a big part of the problem.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 04, 2012 06:18 PM (UlUS4)


Was just having a little 'fantasy'.  Sorry.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 02:21 PM (X/+QT)

131 He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Posted by: Stuff King George Did at January 04, 2012 02:21 PM (KI/Ch)

132  "A nation of laws, not men."

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:17 PM (zLeKL)

 

BWAHAHAHAHA.....

Posted by: Barak Hussein Obama - mmmm mmmm mmmmm at January 04, 2012 02:21 PM (OOqdh)

133 This couldn't happen if the GOP wasn't a pathetic and corrupt excuse for an opposition party.
The establishment types need to be tossed out on their cowardly, lying asses.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2012 02:22 PM (HBqDo)

134 "I didn't know that about Eichmann....that's seriously f'ed up." Apparently Eichmann read Sun Tzu. Know your enemy.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:22 PM (BlMii)

135 the legality is iffy --- How is it "iffy"?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:22 PM (zLeKL)

136 Not seeing anything in that reply that says JJ is wrong. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:20 PM (8y9MW) I was just pointing our that The NLRB usually votes 3-2 with the Dem Majority. Just pointing out it's the 3 dems who warp the decisions, but the yes the whole NLRB is an atrocity and should go.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:23 PM (i6RpT)

137 Can I make the point that if you and I don't do something about this, we're just as bad as them? Really.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:23 PM (zLeKL)

138 This all ends in murder, you know.

Posted by: toby928© feels pessimistic at January 04, 2012 05:56 PM (GTbGH)

Actually this started with murder in 2009 (Watergate didn't have a body count) it ends with the mass murder of about 25,000,000 Americans - at least according to Teh Won's good friend Bill Ayers.


Posted by: An Observation at January 04, 2012 02:23 PM (ylhEn)

139 We are fighting according to Queensberry Rules and they are using the instruction manual for CalvinBall.
 
Anyone that sits out the election this November cuz they are butthurt is a complete idiot.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 04, 2012 02:23 PM (BhuDE)

140 Dear Dems--your guy will not be President forever.  Just sayin'

However, I would disagree with this if Bush did it, by the way. 

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:23 PM (7utQ2)

141 At least Eichmann didn't need a translator when he was being tried.  The Nazis were bad! 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 02:24 PM (Ec6wH)

142 Can I make the point that if you and I don't do something about this, we're just as bad as them?

So what do you suggest?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:24 PM (8y9MW)

143

The proper way to deal with this is for the other branches of government to push back in some way or to go out and let everyone know that Obama is messing with the Constitution.  Since the Senate won't push back on this power grab of their turf because it is there guy, it must fall to the minority party of the Senate to make the case that this is an encroachment on their Constitutional duty to exercise care over who is appointed, or for the House to use its own Constitutional powers of the purse, the right to conduce hearings, or yes even impeachment.  Since I doubt that impeachment is an option because it is a sure loser in every sense of the world, we are left to the other options.  This is a political question that the court will likely not touch.  The provision in the DF bill that requires the confirmation of the director is also likley unconstitutional if it violates the President's recess appointment power. 

Recall the left waged all sorts of unconstitional arguments over President Bush, and largely lost all of them.  These small ball arguments are tough to win.  No I don't mean messing with the Constitution should be considered small ball, but let's face it, much of the country will simply look at this as a dispute between the parties and Congress and the President and just another reason why Washington is dysfunctional.  I look at it as a continuation of the power grabs that have between the 3 branches that has gone on since the founding.  This one will be resolved like many others - politically. 

I suggest sending out Marco Rubio to once again tell the story of the One's power grab as he works toward an imperial presidency with a compliant Senate majority leader who has just weaked what was once the "World's most deliberative body" (surely we can retire that phrase at this point).  Let us make it known, but ultimately there is not much we can do, unless the House has the conviction to use its Constitional powers, or the Senate remembers this and when the GOP takes over, they stay in session and basically block all of Obama's future appointments (assuming he wins a second term, which is a big assumption).

 

Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 02:24 PM (gmeXX)

144 Had Bush done this, 24/7 Media outrage.  Since their guy is doing it, I expect the Silence Treatment.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 04, 2012 02:24 PM (i0App)

145 the legality is iffy --- How is it "iffy"? Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:22 PM (zLeKL) As I hear the "experts" talk on TV and what I read the constitution does NOT spell out what a "recess" really is

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:24 PM (i6RpT)

146 I'm a slave. I'm no longer a free man. Neither are you. We're all peasants and we have no liberty, just permissions from the Nobility, which can be retracted at will. We have no Constitution and no untrammeled rights. I will eat a cup of bean soup tonight and allow the local baron to fuck my bride because that's the kind of society the fucking Democrats have made.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 04, 2012 02:25 PM (X+wG+)

147 Anyone that sits out the election this November cuz they are butthurt is a complete idiot.

This. 

Because, even if we win majorities in both chambers (and we will), this lawless retarded clown posse of an administration would rule by executive order for four years.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:25 PM (7utQ2)

148 This is a coup. They have no budget to hold them back and can spend from trillion dollar slush funds based on continuing resolutions. They can reward their supporters, while H Holder, BJTF, and the NLRB render any opposition helpless. Now this. We seem to be closer to serving a government with all of the defects that were identified in the Declaration of Independence against England.

Posted by: Jay Bee at January 04, 2012 02:25 PM (SGpAe)

149 I'm almost afraid to tune in, is anyone listening to Mark Levin tonight? I usually only listen to the radio when I'm out smoking a stogie (and maybe having a drinky-drink) and I don't want dyspepsia by proxy.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 04, 2012 02:25 PM (Qjh0I)

150 Let's level this hill. And, while we're at it, see that hill over yonder? Yeah, get that one, too. We're lovers, not fighters. Wouldn't be prudent and we might get our hands dirty.

Posted by: GOP Leadership at January 04, 2012 02:25 PM (eHIJJ)

151 It no longer matters what he does. He has already violated the Constitution and normal laws at every turn. Congress refuses to hold him accountable.

He has assumed the role of autocratic dictator. The press doesn't call it, congress doesn't call it and there are no options short of the States calling for an Article V convention and flat at declaring him impeached through an amendment. When he ignores that then the States can call out the national guard and March on Washington.

But all that will never happen because only a few low population States in the West would have the balls.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (YdQQY)

152 Three branches of govt: Me, Myself and I

Posted by: The One at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (Sptt8)

153 As I hear the "experts" talk on TV and what I read the constitution does NOT spell out what a "recess" really is

222 years of history argue otherwise.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (7utQ2)

154 So what do you suggest? ---- It seems simple enough to explain what he did to violate the Constitution. So that helps to get the public on our side. Then, we have to make clear to Republicans that their job is not in danger if they pursue this. if they're afraid, it's because they think they will be punished at the polls. We have to give them permission, as it were, to pursue this.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (zLeKL)

155 what I read the constitution does NOT spell out what a "recess" really is

Yeah, those silly Founders, they figured that people could figure out that "recess" meant a "recess."

Tell me, NGU, do you know what the definition of "is" is?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (8y9MW)

156 I retroactively deem the Senate in recess since it hasn't passed a budget. All laws passed since the last budget are repealed.

Posted by: t-bird at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (l/xhO)

157 from what I read as a layman, the legality is iffy but it will be a waste of time to go to court over this. Cutting off funds seems to be the best way to go.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 06:21 PM (i6RpT)

 

He still has billions upon billions of unused stimulus money.  His minions will be payed one way or the other. 

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 02:26 PM (OOqdh)

158

So it is fine and dandy to ignore clauses in the founding document, eh?

Fine, I refuse to acknowledge the 16th amendment. I never liked that anyway.

Posted by: roborob2000 at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (sYEpI)

159

We are still a nation of laws. The problem is that when those laws are not equally applied to everyone, they are just tools of oppression.

Tyrants love the shit out of laws.

Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (lgw0N)

160 No Seriously Obama's Gone Full-Rogue Unconstitional

It ain't the first time.

Well ... it is the first time that he's gone against the Constition, but that's just the Cliff's notes version of the Constitution that got him through Harvard Law, so it's about the same.  Done before.

He's getting better at poking us in the faces with it, though.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (X3lox)

161

nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 06:21 PM

Hmm, illegality and funds.  Doesn't the gov't fund illegals against our will?

Posted by: Julie at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (O/fK8)

162 OK, so what makes everyone so sure there will actually be an election in Nov now? Its not that much of a stretch from here to suspend elections based on some fabricated "national emergency"

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (BlMii)

163 As I hear the "experts" talk on TV and what I read the constitution does NOT spell out what a "recess" really is Did the House give the Senate permission to go on recess? No? Then they're not in recess. If they did give permission, then this is perfectly legal.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (zLeKL)

164

Can I make the point that if you and I don't do something about this, we're just as bad as them?

Really.

I don't remember voting for any of this shit. And I certainly don't remember instructing anyone in Washington to do this, either.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, CEO Curmudgeons INC. at January 04, 2012 02:27 PM (d0Tfm)

165 Under Dodd-Frank, is it unlawful for Cordray to perform his duties?

The Dodd-Frank Act is very clear, even a law professor can probably under this section, that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is “confirmed by the Senate”.  A recess appointment is not a Senate confirmation. 


Did Obama bull-rush the Senate on NLRB nominees?

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (d6QMz)

166 is the gop willing to die on this hill?

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (Ho2rs)

167 The Constitution says that each branch of government would make up their own laws and rules in regards to themselves.

So if the Senate defines a recess in a certain way, that is the legal definition of the Senate recess. And the SCOAMF is challenging their definition of their own recess.

Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (LnQhT)

168 "A nation of laws, not men."

Wait 'til they get a look at me...

Posted by: Barack Obama, Channelling Jack Nicolson's Joker at January 04, 2012 06:18 PM (8y9MW)

Hey some people just want to see things burn.

Posted by: Barack Obama Channelling Heath Ledger's Joker at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (ylhEn)

169 My first reaction is that the American people can't be bothered to care about this. And if they can't be bothered then there's not much left to fight for. Then again, I am reminded that the American people can be stirred up to care about just about anything - IF THE MEDIA INFORMS THEM. And that's the crux of the problem. The media will not inform them. It will not repeat the story countless times, leading every broadcast with the story. Remember Abu Graib? Half the American people were apoplectic because some idiots put underwear on some prisoner's heads. 37 front page stories from the NYT for crying out loud. And that's where the Bush hatred started and it ended up giving us Obama. That same media is now silent while their boy literally does shred the Constitution. And the American people are asleep. The media is the enemy in all this. They have accomplished what no foreign army has ever been able to do to us. Never forget that.

Posted by: LGoPs at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (lHn6+)

170 Reading comments at lefty blogs just amazes me. They love the fact that Obama is just doing what they hell he wants. The libs actually want this. Friggen crazy days.

Posted by: Bosk at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (n2K+4)

171 This is worth civil war. I'm not fucking joking.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (X+wG+)

172 I deem this the year 2011. Elections will take place as planned in 2012. That is all.

Posted by: Barackus Minimus I at January 04, 2012 02:28 PM (l/xhO)

173 As I hear the "experts" talk on TV and what I read the constitution does NOT spell out what a "recess" really is 222 years of history argue otherwise. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 06:26 PM (7utQ2) what I read the constitution does NOT spell out what a "recess" really is Yeah, those silly Founders, they figured that people could figure out that "recess" meant a "recess." Tell me, NGU, do you know what the definition of "is" is? Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:26 PM (8y9MW) hey I am only repeating what I hear and read. Show where the constitution spells out what a recess is and how many days constitutes one? I hate the bastard and think what he is doing is an abomination. I just don't think the way to counteract what he is doing is to go to Court.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:29 PM (i6RpT)

174 is the gop willing to die on this hill? Are we?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:29 PM (zLeKL)

175 And as some of you have said, the bigger issue may be the fact that Dodd-Frank contains explicit language about nominees that the SCOAMF has now ignored.

Posted by: The Q at January 04, 2012 02:29 PM (LnQhT)

176 Article One, section Five of the Constitution states: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days... This presents a problem for President Obama, who claims to have just made a recess appointment when the Senate is not actually in recess. The Constitution says the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the House's permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:30 PM (zLeKL)

177 1. The Constitution says the President can make appointments while the Senate in recess. 2. The Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules. 3. Therefore, the Senate decides when it is in recess, not the President.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2012 02:30 PM (l9zgN)

178

What Circa said at 147.

I'm a Conservative before Republican but I'll donate to and vote for the nominee whoever he is.

Would be nice to have a guy that hasn't already agreed with Dems on HC Mandates, Global Warming and Gun Controls though. (looking at you Mitt and Newt)

Posted by: BoreGuru (was Huckleberry and off comments for a while) at January 04, 2012 02:30 PM (s2bW4)

179 Its not that much of a stretch from here to suspend elections based on some fabricated "national emergency"

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 06:27 PM (BlMii)


Default on our own debt service, perhaps?  Barky already discovered that he can threaten to do that and the GOP shitheads will act as if it's their doing.  The sky's the limits for this guy.  Open field running. 

"Rubber dinghy rapids!" -- Barky

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 02:31 PM (X3lox)

180 is the gop willing to die on this hill?

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at January 04, 2012 06:28 PM (Ho2rs)

I think the GOP died after RR left office.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 02:31 PM (YdQQY)

181 nevergiveup: it might be helpful if you read the articles that have been linked, especially when you want to comment on it. It makes you look less like an idiot.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:31 PM (zLeKL)

182 I seem to recall Dems doing the same thing to prevent Bush from giving recess appointments during his presidency and repeating over and over about the constitutionality of it.  If I get the time later I'll see if I can dig something up, too busy at work to do it now.  Anyone else recall this or was it just another imaginary memory from a weekend Val-U-Rite bender?

Posted by: Grunt2Jag at January 04, 2012 02:31 PM (Yr6lx)

183 Up next, double the size of the supreme court and pack it.

Posted by: Jimmah at January 04, 2012 02:32 PM (TMeYE)

184 Article One, section Five of the Constitution states: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days... This presents a problem for President Obama, who claims to have just made a recess appointment when the Senate is not actually in recess. The Constitution says the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the House's permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity. Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:30 PM (zLeKL) And the obama administration is claiming that simply banging the congress into session and then closing business for the day is not legit and does not constitute a real session.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:32 PM (i6RpT)

185 "A nation of laws, not men."

We're not even a nation of men.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 02:32 PM (X3lox)

Posted by: WheelmanForHire at January 04, 2012 02:32 PM (l8nIR)

187 hate to think what 4 more years of this will turn this country into.

Posted by: trailortrash at January 04, 2012 02:32 PM (xllDV)

188 148 This is a coup. They have no budget to hold them back and can spend from trillion dollar slush funds based on continuing resolutions...

The omnibus makes appropriations through September 30, 2012.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:33 PM (d6QMz)

189 I think the GOP died after RR left office.

The biggest tactical and strategic mistake of the past 25 years was Bush I folding on taxes.  Absolutely horrible.  In a great many ways, we never recovered.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:33 PM (7utQ2)

190 And the obama administration is claiming that simply banging the congress into session and then closing business for the day is not legit and does not constitute a real session.

He doesn't get to make that decision.  The Senate gets to make it own rules (because the Constitution says so) about how it will operate.  If they say they're in session, they're in session.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:33 PM (8y9MW)

191 If the President and Congress are going to ignore the Constitution at their convenience, then why not the states? The states should start to take steps to convene an Article V convention. More than enough states have requested one at one time or another, and but for extra-constitutional requirements (contemporaneous, same subject, time limits) added by Congress, Congress should have issued a call for one a long time ago. We seem to be reliving the latter days of the Roman Republic, only without the violence (yet). Even if the GOP controls the Presidency, House, and Senate, it is not clear that they have the will to turn things around.

Posted by: ManeiNeko at January 04, 2012 02:33 PM (TiE76)

192 nevergiveup: it might be helpful if you read the articles that have been linked, especially when you want to comment on it. It makes you look less like an idiot. Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:31 PM (zLeKL) A) for fuck yourself also B) again you want to die on your sword and give obama the election by trying to tie this shit up in Court which is exactly what he wants you to do

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:33 PM (i6RpT)

193 The Senate went into recess Dec 23.  It is gaveled back in every three days as "pro forma" - which is not mentioned in the Constitution as legitimate.

Teddy Roosevelt made 193 appointments thusly (Washington Post) --

“At high noon on Dec. 7 1903,” Senate associate historian Betty K. Koed has written, the Senate president pro tem brought down the gavel to end one session of the Senate and then said “the Senate will now come to order.”

“In that moment between sessions,” Koed wrote, “during that split-second of time it took . . . to wield the gavel, President Theodore Roosevelt made 193 recess appointments.”

“There was but one fall of the gavel,” a newspaper reported, “but one stroke, but one sound.” Even senators in the chamber didn’t know there’d been a recess or, as Roosevelt most creatively put it, a “constructive recess.”


Posted by: Clarence at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (z0HdK)

194 And the obama administration is claiming that simply banging the congress into session and then closing business for the day is not legit and does not constitute a real session.

The executive branch cannot decide what constitutes recess.  I mean, really...what the hell?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (7utQ2)

195 vic i think i agree with you.....how did the morning go?

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (Ho2rs)

196 One man's lunch break is another man's recess.

Posted by: SCOAMF CON SCHOLAR at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (U9Spd)

197  I'm a slave. I'm no longer a free man. Neither are you. We're all peasants and we have no liberty, just permissions from the Nobility, which can be retracted at will. We have no Constitution and no untrammeled rights.

I will eat a cup of bean soup tonight and allow the local baron to fuck my bride because that's the kind of society the fucking Democrats have made.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 04, 2012 06:25 PM (X+wG+)

 

There's one small catch.  We still have guns.....and Bic lighters.

If this keeps on, all we'll need is the will.

The SCOAMF still has over a year to bring more and more chaos to our beloved country.  

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (OOqdh)

198 Since when did you and I decide to accept our fate? When did you and I decide to just sit here on the blog and bitch about our elected representatives and not do anything about it? When the fuck did that happen?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (zLeKL)

199 And the obama administration is claiming that simply banging the congress into session and then closing business for the day is not legit and does not constitute a real session. He doesn't get to make that decision. The Senate gets to make it own rules (because the Constitution says so) about how it will operate. If they say they're in session, they're in session. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:33 PM (8y9MW) And I do not disagree with you but he wants the GOP to go to War with him on this. Don't fall into that trap.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:34 PM (i6RpT)

200 hey I am only repeating what I hear and read. Show where the constitution spells out what a recess is and how many days constitutes one? I hate the bastard and think what he is doing is an abomination. I just don't think the way to counteract what he is doing is to go to Court.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 06:29 PM (i6RpT)

Show me the definition of "a year" in the Constitution.  It doesn't exist, yet they talk about years in the document all the time.  Is it a muslim year?  Who knows what sort of year it could be.  It might be how many years one FEELS have passed ... empathy being so important to our judiciary these days ...

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 02:35 PM (X3lox)

201 It doesn't matter to the courts in this kind of fight between the Congress and the President if the President is a Democrat. They will not agree to hear the case. They will simply deny standing based on the fact that congress has other means to deal with it; i.e. impeachment.

They have done that a lot lately.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 02:35 PM (YdQQY)

202 I am tired of this Paul Krugman presidency.

Posted by: whatever at January 04, 2012 02:35 PM (O7ksG)

203 175 And as some of you have said, the bigger issue may be the fact that Dodd-Frank contains explicit language about nominees that the SCOAMF has now ignored. I agree!

Posted by: runningrn at January 04, 2012 02:36 PM (U9Spd)

204 There is a fundamental problem with how our current form of government operates: all the processes act as a ratchet.

There seems to be NO specific means to easily reverse any steps to any point in the process. After a law or regulation has passed and any departments or agencies created thereby become imbued with eternal life with an ever increasing scope and budget.

This is a flaw that the Liberals/Democrats have taken advantage of that has put us in more and more danger and debt. With no easy way to back out.

Yes, sunset provisions can and have been made but it is not mandated that all laws and regulations have them.

There are very few laws or agencies that have outlived their purpose that have been eliminated. We still pay an excise tax that was created for civil war vets!! The ITC (bet you never even heard of it) still exists even though it has been superseded by the DOT.

There are hundreds of examples.

This needs to be addressed if we can ever recover control of the country.


Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 02:36 PM (xqpQL)

205 And I do not disagree with you but he wants the GOP to go to War with him on this. Don't fall into that trap.

So, because he wants me to oppose his unconstitutional usurpation of authority, I shouldn't oppose his unconstitutional usurpation of authority?

I'll say again: if we fight this fight and lose- there was nothing worth saving anyway.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:36 PM (8y9MW)

206 As I said the only thing short of a civil war is an article V convention.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 02:36 PM (YdQQY)

207 @173 - I agree.  The court won't touch this.  I do think there is a issue as to how long you can leave open a pro-forma session before we consider it really in recess.  The problem is that there is no precedent on this - no precedent in Obama's favor that is.  The recess clause is likely not even important at this time, since Senators no longer travel by stagecoach to Washington.  But what if DC was destroyed in a nuclear attack while the Senate was in Session.  Clearly then the President would have the power to openly declare that there was a "recess" and not requiring Senate approval for appointments.  This way out hypothetical is just given to show that things are not as black and white as they first appear.  This is not meant to support BO in what he is doing.  Just that the proper way to fight it is to take your case to the people and make the argument to them, and hope they agree.  Just know the left tried that tactic in 2004 and lost.  I think the right can win, because the left's idea of trampling on the Constitution is not giving terrorist due process rights.  The rights idea of trampling the constitution is blatently avoiding the procedures spelled out in the Constitution to pick a fight.  I think the right can make there case - I suggest Marco Rubio.

Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 02:37 PM (gmeXX)

208 Its not that much of a stretch from here to suspend elections based on some fabricated "national emergency"
 
by PA
 
I say fine. The battle lines would finally be clear.

Posted by: GnuBreed at January 04, 2012 02:37 PM (BhuDE)

209 It's days like today I remember the SCOAMF's innaugeration. My then- first grader came home complaining loudly that his teacher made him watch the whole annihilation. We all got a kick out of it then, but haven't stopped watching, er, rather reading, about the annihilation yet.

Posted by: Justamom at January 04, 2012 02:37 PM (Sptt8)

210 So, because he wants me to oppose his unconstitutional usurpation of authority, I shouldn't oppose his unconstitutional usurpation of authority? I'll say again: if we fight this fight and lose- there was nothing worth saving anyway. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:36 PM (8y9MW) We can fight it without going to Court, that's all I am saying

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:37 PM (i6RpT)

211 Sorry Ace this is NOT a political issue. It is flat out in violation of the constitution of the United States. That would be like saying that he can suspend the election in November. He can't do it. What is next from this man?

Posted by: jmm at January 04, 2012 02:37 PM (hWfH3)

212 I'll say again: if we fight this fight and lose- there was nothing worth saving anyway. ---- Agreed.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:38 PM (zLeKL)

213 And I do not disagree with you but he wants the GOP to go to War with him on this. Don't fall into that trap.

Don't fight him on the budget.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on Libya.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on EPA regs.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on Keystone.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on recess appointments.  It's a trap.

There is a trap springing here for those who will see.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:38 PM (7utQ2)

214 Couldn't keep it, huh?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at January 04, 2012 02:38 PM (dOsjQ)

215 He doesn't get to make that decision.  The Senate gets to make it own rules (because the Constitution says so) about how it will operate.  If they say they're in session, they're in session.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:33 PM (8y9MW)

 

'Zactly!  No more, no less.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 02:38 PM (OOqdh)

216 It doesn't matter to the courts in this kind of fight between the Congress and the President if the President is a Democrat. They will not agree to hear the case.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 06:35 PM (YdQQY)

This case has no business in the courts, anyway.  This is a matter that calls for impeachment by Congress.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 02:39 PM (X3lox)

217 A) for fuck yourself also B) again you want to die on your sword and give obama the election by trying to tie this shit up in Court which is exactly what he wants you to do ---- You're mad because you know I'm right.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:39 PM (zLeKL)

218 There are two very different aspects to this. The first, and obvious one -- the one which I think is motivating most of the current furor -- is that this is a means by which a very, very liberal Executive is advancing his very, very liberal policy choices. If you don't like those liberal policy choices, this upsets you. The second aspect, however, has nothing to do with whether the specific policy choices being advanced by these recess appointments are conservative or liberal. The second aspect is not a struggle between conservatism and liberalism. It's a struggle -- an on-going, slow-motion, multi-decade struggle that proceeds only in fits and starts, and often with feints and bluffs -- between the Executive and Legislative Branches. The framers of the Constitution envisioned this second aspect and, indeed, counted on it. The third branch has to be factored in as well, but it's involvement on any given dispute can't be presumed, and indeed there is a significant chance that it will refuse to become involved (under "political question" and "justiciability" doctrines that self-limit court authority). Dubya made some controversial appointments in which he staked out a position -- not on behalf of conservatives or Republicans, but on behalf of the Executive (including his successors in that office) -- that the Executive's view of what constitutes a proper "recess" also counts. Congress pushed back and became more manipulatory, which was institutionally expected. Here, though, Obama's pushing farther than any of his predecessors. He's staking out a much more extreme institutional position. He's probably gotten "too cute by half" -- something that happens when con-law profs get drunk on their own fart fumes. I expect him to back down or find some negotiated way to save face, rather than let this actually reach a thorough test at the SCOTUS level. But that assumes he'll be wise and rational, and I concede there's precious little evidence of that from other contexts.

Posted by: Beldar at January 04, 2012 02:39 PM (MK/vo)

219 213 And I do not disagree with you but he wants the GOP to go to War with him on this. Don't fall into that trap.

Don't fight him on the budget.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on Libya.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on EPA regs.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on Keystone.  It's a trap.  Don't fight him on recess appointments.  It's a trap.

There is a trap springing here for those who will see.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 06:38 PM (7utQ2)

It's a... yeah you all know the rest

Posted by: Admiral Akbar at January 04, 2012 02:40 PM (KI/Ch)

220 Anyone that sits out the election this November cuz they are butthurt is a complete idiot.

And just who do you think will be counting the votes come November? Remarkably the election will turn out just the way we thought it would.

Posted by: Eric Holder and 131 new lawyers at the DOJ at January 04, 2012 02:40 PM (ylhEn)

221 A) for fuck yourself also B) again you want to die on your sword and give obama the election by trying to tie this shit up in Court which is exactly what he wants you to do ---- You're mad because you know I'm right. Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:39 PM (zLeKL) I'm not mad and your the one who always first resorts to insults.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:40 PM (i6RpT)

222 @190

I hear your words. But reality is reality. The deed is done.

Frankly, if the Senate had done this to Reagan, do you think he would have sulked off to the White House, tail tween his legs?! He'd have done the SAME thing. Not just appoint one, but four. Screw 'em.

The GOP forced this fight with the pedantic gavel nonsense. The executive branch has every right to maneuver in response. AND THIS WAS A GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OUTCOME. The GOP should be ashamed of their sophomoric politics.

Posted by: Bob_B at January 04, 2012 02:41 PM (0tRzD)

223

Associated Builders and Contractors and the National Association of Manufacturers considering their options:

“We are considering all possible legal recourse. We believe it's clear the president has violated decades of precedent and possibly the Constitution."

~Geoff Burr, Vice President of Federal Affairs for the Associated Builders & Contractors.


“The NAM will consider all options to put a halt to this, including pursuing legal action."

~Joe Trauger, Vice President of Human Resources for the National Association of Manufacturers. 

/The Hill

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:41 PM (d6QMz)

224 Posted by: Beldar at January 04, 2012 06:39 PM (MK/vo) ---- If he backs down, fine. If this becomes a non-issue, fine. There are others. But there comes a point where we can not allow any more bullshit. It just becomes too much.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:42 PM (zLeKL)

225

Obama's already made a campaign issue out of this in his speech today.

There's clear text and precedence that shows he's wrong; and speeches on the record by Dems against Bush true-recess appointments. NLRB pro-union action in SC and Card-Check is unpopular.

Sounds like a good stump speech issue for R candidates to me. 

Posted by: BoreGuru (was Huckleberry and off comments for a while) at January 04, 2012 02:42 PM (s2bW4)

226

OK, so what makes everyone so sure there will actually be an election in Nov now? Its not that much of a stretch from here to suspend elections based on some fabricated "national emergency"

Now that I think of it, that might, just might, get some people's attention and alert them to the fact that something, somewhere, just might, (might, mind you) be slightly wrong with this administration.

Maybe.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, CEO Curmudgeons INC. at January 04, 2012 02:42 PM (d0Tfm)

227  Sorry Ace this is NOT a political issue. It is flat out in violation of the constitution of the United States. That would be like saying that he can suspend the election in November. He can't do it. What is next from this man?

Posted by: jmm at January 04, 2012 06:37 PM (hWfH3)

 

Don't underestimate the SCOAMF and this regime.  I'm sure they're convening think-tanks and brainstorms to do this very thing.  You know, for the security of our nation. 

 

 

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 02:42 PM (OOqdh)

228 "the obama administration is claiming that simply banging the congress into session and then closing business for the day is not legit and does not constitute a real session." Meh, so you pass some legislation. Every day pass a bill naming/dedicating some obscure interstate overpass. These kinds of bills are passed all the time during regular session, so you just defer and stockpile them until you need them.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:43 PM (BlMii)

229 Suck my dick America!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at January 04, 2012 02:43 PM (lVGED)

230 208 Its not that much of a stretch from here to suspend elections based on some fabricated "national emergency" Yeah, something the libs always projected on GWB. Remember the outrage of them foaming at the mouth over Bush wiping his butt with The Constitution. Of course those mofos in the Main Effing Media declare that the Obama administration is amazingly scandal free.

Posted by: runningrn at January 04, 2012 02:43 PM (U9Spd)

231 So, is anyone bothering to stand up and say, "You can't do that, you stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure."?

As if morons give "Restore America" credit where due.

Posted by: Repo Men at January 04, 2012 02:44 PM (lpWVn)

232

Since when has Obama ever cared about legality, the constitution or precedent except for when he can use them to beat the GOP over the head.

. 

 

Posted by: retired military at January 04, 2012 02:44 PM (kZW4U)

233

That would be like saying that he can suspend the election in November. He can't do it. What is next from this man?

What's next? Suspend the election. The Constitution is for little people. Obama knows what he is doing.

Posted by: stillers at January 04, 2012 02:44 PM (gVUg0)

234 This will probabaly cause Kennedy to actually get more pissed at Obama to smite him in Obamacare ruling. Could be a blessing in disguise. Thank God he is stupid.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 04, 2012 02:45 PM (FKQng)

235 Meh, so you pass some legislation. Every day pass a bill naming/dedicating some obscure interstate overpass. These kinds of bills are passed all the time during regular session, so you just defer and stockpile them until you need them. Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 06:43 PM (BlMii) I agree but you really think enough members would give up their "free" time to do that?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 04, 2012 02:45 PM (i6RpT)

236 The GOP forced this fight with the pedantic gavel nonsense. The executive branch has every right to maneuver in response. AND THIS WAS A GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OUTCOME. The GOP should be ashamed of their sophomoric politics. Wait until we choke off funding for this bullshit agency, Bobby. You have no idea of the procedural fuckery your boy just unleashed.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2012 02:45 PM (ac6ny)

237 I've had this bad feeling for a while now that Obama plans to exit the WH in exactly the same way as his hero FDR. This only makes the feeling worse... Ugh.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 04, 2012 02:45 PM (KI/Ch)

238 Posted by: Beldar at January 04, 2012 06:39 PM (MK/vo)

No.

This is a Conservative vs Liberal issue in as much as its a Constitutionalist vs Anti-Constitutionalist issue (can you guess which side is Conservative?)

The Constitution says certain things.  Among them that, unless the Senate is in Recess, the President's appointments are subject to "advise and consent," that each house of the legislature gets to makes its own rules regarding its operation, and that neither house of congress can be in recess for more than 3 days without consent of the other house (which indicates they believe a "recess" to be more than three days, but we can do without that argument in light of the "set their own rules" thingy).

The Senate has declared that they are not "in recess," and the President has said, "I don't care what the Constitution says, I'm the one who gets to decide whether or not you're in recess."

What, does he get to "assemble the Parliament" next?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:45 PM (8y9MW)

239

If Obama were to suspend the elections, then any agents of the federal government would be legitimate targets for retribution.  They'd be fairly well insulated inside the malignant tumor that is DC, but outside in the body politic they'd be vulnerable. 

He'd need military backing to suspend the elections, which I doubt he'd receive 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 02:45 PM (Ec6wH)

240

Whoever posted that the States should push back on whether it can ignore certain aspects of the Constitution - I couldn't agree more.  That is one of Perry's argument on behalf of the state of Texas (The State with more than 50% of new jobs in the past decade - if anyone cares) on his pushback of the EPA.  The EPA was violating Texas' 10th A rights.  Whether Texas wins or loses, it is good to see some states push back.  They should.  The framers would not only have loved it, but expected it - or maybe they would have not only expected, but loved it. 

The branches should push against one another, and the states should push against the federal government.  Each division (horizontal and vertical) should be protecting its own interest.  That is the only way to protect the accumlation of power.  That is the genius of the Constitition. 

Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 02:46 PM (gmeXX)

241 I have decided to join the Amish until after the election.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky hates everyone at January 04, 2012 02:46 PM (baL2B)

242 Another thing congress could do is decouple all the omnibus shit and vote on a thousand different things, sending Obama a thousand different bills to sign. Give the cock sucker carpal tunnel signing shit.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:46 PM (BlMii)

243 Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 06:41 PM (d6QMz) I hope they bring it! You know our betters in the GOP will sit on their hands and at most write a few sharply worded letters.

Posted by: runningrn at January 04, 2012 02:46 PM (U9Spd)

244 1. Look, I'm sorry. That Mass Health Care Deal Sucked. 2. NLRB is abolished day 1 of my administration. 3. Former President, hideous wife, cute kids, and mother in law will be on the curb, looking for a cab to Chicago. 4. Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Onyago will be on a C-130 for Kenya, where a hut awaits them.

Posted by: Things that Romney Should Say, and In So Doing Coast To His Election at January 04, 2012 02:47 PM (hM0FR)

245 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 06:45 PM (8y9MW) ---- See? Easy enough to explain.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:47 PM (zLeKL)

246 243 Another thing congress could do is decouple all the omnibus shit and vote on a thousand different things, sending Obama a thousand different bills to sign. Give the cock sucker carpal tunnel signing shit. AUTOPEN! BITCHEZ!!

Posted by: SCOAMF at January 04, 2012 02:47 PM (U9Spd)

247

Obama is a black leftist, so he gets to do whatever he wants.

That's the rule.

Posted by: Warden at January 04, 2012 02:48 PM (HzhBE)

248 Aunt Zeituni didn't do anything wrong! She makes great pancakes!

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 02:49 PM (Ec6wH)

249 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 04, 2012 02:49 PM (ybkwK)

250 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly.

Nope.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 04, 2012 02:50 PM (7utQ2)

251 There is a clear line between being underhanded and unconstitutional. If there is a loophole or something, fine. It's legal and Obama is just sneaky. But, I think it's pretty clear that he's broken the law.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:50 PM (zLeKL)

252 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly. ---- Wrong.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 02:50 PM (zLeKL)

253 He'd need military backing to suspend the elections, which I doubt he'd receive  Oh, that's where the civillian security force/ACORN/OWS/Black Panthers etc. kick in. Plus he can imprison dissenters for no reason now, indefinitely.

Posted by: SCOAMF at January 04, 2012 02:50 PM (U9Spd)

254 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly.

Incorrect.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 02:52 PM (8y9MW)

255 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly. Right. Because no one here ever criticized Bush. Ever. For anything. Because no one here ever puts principles before political advantage. Here's an idea - get your head out of your ass.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2012 02:52 PM (0yt4x)

256 I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 04, 2012 06:49 PM (ybkwK) You are so wrong on so many levels.

Posted by: SCOAMF at January 04, 2012 02:52 PM (U9Spd)

257 what is it Rush says? That the country's traditions and procedures will not be enough to hold back the left.

Posted by: joeindc44 - slightly mellowed tebow crazed rioter at January 04, 2012 02:53 PM (QxSug)

258 I have a feeling Ed "Poppin' Fresh" Morrissey, giggling uncontrollably, is adding this to his list of "Obamateurisms."

That'll show the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure!

This is not a hill to die on, folks. Let's wait calmly until Osama Obama really does something awful...the current list of felonies, unconstitutional actions and other crimes is way too short to get excited about.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 04, 2012 02:53 PM (tkd/a)

259 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly.

I guess you can't read all the postings we have put on here blasting the shit of Republicans in Congress like McCain who pushed through blatantly unconstitutional shit.

We don't give anyone a break on that which is one of the reason Congress has an approval rating of 11%.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 02:53 PM (YdQQY)

260 He ain't my boy, Jeff. And didn't vote for his ass. I voted for the war hero you all talk shit about.

What I am talking about is the goddam clusterfuck in congress that would get their ass handed to them by a high school chess team. Not just amateurs, but total fucking retards.

What the fuck did these shit brains EXPECT obama to do?!? This isn't fucking algebra. Jesus Christ, IO would have shoved these appointments up their ass, too. They backed themselves into a corner.

I'm a republican. And I'm not in denial about the shit on my side of the aisle. You go ahead and live in your little dream empire, Jeffy.

Posted by: Bob_B at January 04, 2012 02:54 PM (niW49)

261 250 Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly. Not a fucking chance. I have more principles than a goddamned maggot, so I'd be furious. The ones who would cheer aren't Americans. They're domestic enemies of the Constitution, no matter what they call themselves.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 04, 2012 02:54 PM (X+wG+)

262

Oh, that's where the civillian security force/ACORN/OWS/Black Panthers etc. kick in.

Except for one teensy, tiny little thing: The Rest of Us vastly outnumber them.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, CEO Curmudgeons INC. at January 04, 2012 02:55 PM (d0Tfm)

263 " Let's face it, if he were our guy, and in the same circumstances, we would be cheering this on screamingly." Leftists always project their own weak ethics onto others

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 04, 2012 02:55 PM (BlMii)

264 This is an opportunity for the GOP to remind America that Obama does not represent the hope and change he campaigned on.  As if such reminder were necessary.  I think whichever candidate really goes after Obama in this weekend's debates on this will rise in the polls.  I suspect Newt can't wait to make a statement on this.  Because Newt can most eloquently cite history and precedents than the other candidates.  Let's hope the field goes after Obama on this. 

Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 02:55 PM (gmeXX)

265 It's a damn good thing that the GOP veterans reigned in those Tea Party freshman radicals because they're crazy.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2012 02:57 PM (HBqDo)

266 Cordray Recess Appointment is Travesty for Government Accountability

If any adjournment or break the Senate takes can be defined as “recess,” can the president make appointments when the Senate is in formal session and gavels out for the evening? Our long-held tradition of checks and balances advises strongly against going down this road.

And, in this case, the CFPB itself shatters precedents, as well as specific Constitutional provisions, on checks and balances in regulatory agencies. Once a director is appointed, Congress has no effective oversight of the bureau through the appropriations process, as it does with other agencies.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 02:58 PM (d6QMz)

267

OWS/ACORN/Black Panther Horde:  Polish Army on horseback

Moron Horde:  Wehrmacht Panzers

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 02:59 PM (Ec6wH)

268 Sure, Bobby. You're very concerned. Now I've gotcha.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2012 03:00 PM (PLHIl)

269

The branches should push against one another, and the states should push against the federal government.  Each division (horizontal and vertical) should be protecting its own interest.  That is the only way to protect the accumlation of power.  That is the genius of the Constitition. 

Posted by: SH at January 04, 2012 06:46 PM (gmeXX)

 

One of the main things OK did a few years ago that makes us almost immune to the NLRB is passing our Right to Work law.  Any state that doesn't have one is opening itself up completely to NLRB chicanary. 

Boeing is opening up a manufacturing plant here in OK,  I'm sure our RtW law had a lot to do with it. 

 

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 03:01 PM (OOqdh)

270 202 I am tired of this Paul Krugman presidency. And, Thomas Friedman...

Posted by: anotherformoftransparency at January 04, 2012 03:01 PM (/MuFf)

271 AP News Wire

01-04-2012

REPUBLICAN PARTY SLIDES OFF ROAD. NO SURVIVORS

Today the Republican party, while believing they were avoiding traps set by unknown individuals, slid off a slippery slope into a canyon of apathy.

All Republican members of Congress, House and Senate, were found dead or dying at the bottom of the canyon.

All over the country over half the people were in mourning while the remainder were filled with glee.

Services will be held this summer in Tampa, Florida.

The vehicle they were "operating" (Known as the United States of America) has been severely damaged and may not be repairable to original standards.

Those conservatives who got off before the crash claim they were laughed at and taunted about "hills to die on" and "having to pick our fights" as they were exiting the vehicle. They have begun a class action lawsuit against the vandals who had damaged the roadway by placing blocks to procedures, illegal signage and forcing the driver to swerve to avoid hitting them.

Posted by: Theocracy or Corporate Statism, you choose. at January 04, 2012 03:02 PM (xqpQL)

272 When in the course of human events...

Posted by: The Founders at January 04, 2012 03:02 PM (dOsjQ)

273 I don't care, Obama is awesome. XXOO, your hate-filled liberal friends, forgetting how much they were against war and deficits and for the constitution just a few years ago.

Posted by: joeindc44 - slightly mellowed tebow crazed rioter at January 04, 2012 03:03 PM (QxSug)

274

There's one small catch.  We still have guns.....and Bic lighters.

If this keeps on, all we'll need is the will.

The SCOAMF still has over a year to bring more and more chaos to our beloved country.  

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 06:34 PM (OOqdh)

Of course this is exactly what the SCOAMF and the MFM wants. Good reason to institute the internal Civilian security service as big as well financed as the military.

So another Axelrod Troll tries to incite riot.

Posted by: Eric Holder and 131 new lawyers at the DOJ at January 04, 2012 03:04 PM (ylhEn)

275 Simple solution. The House ties up funding for any and all of Obama's pet agencies- say the EPA for instance, or the Dept. of the Interior. Then, as a member of Congress, you smile nicely and tell the MSM Obama can have his toys back, maybe, if he agrees to play nice. Important part of this: Be nice, don't raise your voice, and make sure to smile the entire time!

Posted by: John Pearson at January 04, 2012 03:05 PM (VYC9m)

276

The CFPB itself was a battle Republicans lost over a year ago.  Congress passed it into law, and Obama should be able to get a nominee to run it confirmed.  Republicans can win the next election and make the changes they wish in the next session, but itÂ’s unreasonable to simply block the agency from operating with its chosen leadership.

Ed "Conservative Blogger of the Year" Morrissey

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 03:06 PM (3wBRE)

277 You mooks are gonna be so shocked when I unzip my clean, articulate African-American rubber suit and step out into the sunlight.

Posted by: Louis XIV at January 04, 2012 03:06 PM (AZGON)

278 This is not a hill to die on, folks. Let's wait calmly until Osama Obama really does something awful...the current list of felonies, unconstitutional actions and other crimes is way too short to get excited about.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 04, 2012 06:53 PM (tkd/a)

 

All the little unconstitutional things are starting to add up, MrScribbler.  What we're starting to get worried about is that big ball of inconsequential shit that's beginning to roll us over.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 03:09 PM (OOqdh)

279 My friendshz, you don't have to be afraid of Obama.

Posted by: Juan McLame at January 04, 2012 03:09 PM (tQHzJ)

280 Reposted from Drew's Posting:

Question: Could a business that is regulated by CFPB challenge any post-appointment regulations because Cordray lacks Senate confirmation?

To counter the argument that the regulation would take place anyway (and maybe eliminate standing on the part of the business?), could you counter-argue that the choice on what/when regulations to create/enforce is discretionary in nature, due to limited resources of the agency, and that the choice was made by said unconfirmed appointee?

Would this side-step the Executive vs. Legislature “political question” that the courts historically by-pass?

Asked by an engineer and not a lawyer. Cross-posted over at Legal Insurrection.


Posted by: John P. Squibob at January 04, 2012 03:10 PM (kqqGm)

281 12 more months of the Ayers Administration...

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 04, 2012 03:12 PM (niZvt)

282 You mooks are gonna be so shocked when I unzip my clean, articulate African-American rubber suit and step out into the sunlight.

Posted by: Louis XIV at January 04, 2012 07:06 PM (AZGON)

Louis XVI might be more appropriate.

Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at January 04, 2012 03:12 PM (lgw0N)

283 54 Defund every agency that gets a recess appointment.

Bingo!

Posted by: jrg at January 04, 2012 03:13 PM (BkQvr)

284 Any state that doesn't have one is opening itself up completely to NLRB chicanary.

You mean like SC which is a RTW State?

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 03:13 PM (YdQQY)

285 Has Alan Colmes asked if Obama took his dead constitution home and played with it yet??

Posted by: GrumpyUnk at January 04, 2012 03:15 PM (yhBBP)

286

Of course this is exactly what the SCOAMF and the MFM wants. Good reason to institute the internal Civilian security service as big as well financed as the military.

So another Axelrod Troll tries to incite riot.

Posted by: Eric Holder and 131 new lawyers at the DOJ at January 04, 2012 07:04 PM (ylhEn)

 

I'm not trying to incite anything.  All I'm doing is pointing out a few facts about one of our constitutional options if this government/regime can't be reigned in. 

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 03:17 PM (OOqdh)

287

Who's up for a three-million man march on Washington?

Posted by: Not the OWS you were looking for at January 04, 2012 03:17 PM (k8fKL)

288 Someone on my Facebook is honestly trying to make the argument that Obama can violate the Constitution to his heart's content because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering. So doing an end-run around Congress is perfectly acceptable because they failed to do their jobs in that they did not give-in to Obama's demands.

*head desk*

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 03:19 PM (d6QMz)

289 Defund the Secret Service, maybe that will get the constitutional scholar's attention.

Posted by: Darth Randall at January 04, 2012 03:19 PM (O/onO)

290 Just think, somewhere Obama is turning his chin up at you. What are you going to do? Tell his Excellency that he can't protect you from yourself?

Posted by: Heftyjo at January 04, 2012 03:19 PM (gtoBO)

291 This is a big fucking deal. It seems that Reid is okay with this, but does it matter? One or the other body has to give permission, so Reid's cover is meaningless.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 03:20 PM (zLeKL)

292 **279 This is not a hill to die on, folks. Let's wait calmly until Osama Obama really does something awful...the current list of felonies, unconstitutional actions and other crimes is way too short to get excited about. Posted by: MrScribbler at January 04, 2012 06:53 PM (tkd/a)** oh, so this idiotic meme is being floated then? Let us not engage this enemy, for the battle would be too wicked. Fuck it, be the evil party, let's own that name. Obama wants to fight and our first response is, well, he wins this round. That's like during Iraq when we ceded mosques as firing positions. SCOAMF lost nov2010 like a bitch, he has no supporters outside the bought and paid for. who the fuck cares, GOP? Fight him. Hell, point out that he's doing this on purpose as a PR ploy.

Posted by: joeindc44 - slightly mellowed tebow crazed rioter at January 04, 2012 03:20 PM (QxSug)

293 So what. George Bush actually fired some attorneys. Now that was unconstitutional!!!1!

Posted by: Commenter at January 04, 2012 03:22 PM (xHenH)

294 Congress won't do anything.  The only way that we'll see a fight is if it comes from the state level.  We need to see Republican governors start announcing that they view these appointments as illegitimate and will not recognize their authority, or the authority of those who carry out their orders, and will arrest anyone attempting to enforce illegal laws.

Posted by: Alex at January 04, 2012 03:22 PM (+1TUS)

295 You mean like SC which is a RTW State?

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 07:13 PM (YdQQY)

 

I said a RtW state "doesn't open itself completely...".  I kind of fault Boeing for not fighting the NLRB ruling.  They could have won.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 03:22 PM (OOqdh)

296

If you Google Cordray recess appointment under news, you can hardly find mention of this blatantly unconstitutional act.

And when you do, outlets like the Chicago Tribune pretend it was a legitimate appointment.

WASHINGTON (AP) — With its first chief now in place, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will start enforcing rules aimed at reining in abusive mortgage servicers, student lenders and payday-loan companies.

It will be months, though, before the agency can police other areas of consumer finance, such as debt collection and credit-reporting bureaus.

Over Republican opposition, President Barack Obama used a congressional recess appointment Wednesday to install Richard Cordray to lead the consumer finance watchdog. The bureau was created in July as part of the 2010 overhaul of the nation's financial regulations.

This makes me so fucking angry and upset that I want to vomit, then beat the living fuck out of the first leftist I see, then vomit again.

One the more strategic side of the fence, I'd like to see our side take to the airwaves and say, "Barack Obama is not King of America. He doesn't get to do whatever he wants." Then lay out the Constitional case against what he's attempting to do.

Sure a lot of people don't want to hear about all that stuff, but his lavish vacation schedule already plays into the narrative that Barack views himself as royalty.

Posted by: Warden at January 04, 2012 03:23 PM (KSlTc)

297 **because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering.** It's true that with one subservient branch filled with IDCOIA types, there's limited power because they won't pass anything (to the tune of a $2trillion annual deficit), but that's stupid. Of course, you know it's stupid. The point is is that to the hate-filled, instant acquiescence liberal, "because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering," actually is enough to say, ok screw the constitution. Look, ass, the congress is divided because they oppose what SCOAMF is doing, that's a policy preference. Well, at least we'll have something else to be pissed about as the GOP establishment finds another battle to lose.

Posted by: joeindc44 - slightly mellowed tebow crazed rioter at January 04, 2012 03:24 PM (QxSug)

298 Are we going to let him get away with this?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 03:24 PM (zLeKL)

299 I kind of fault Boeing for not fighting the NLRB ruling.  They could have won.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 07:22 PM (OOqdh)

It wasn't a ruling. The SOB actually entered a civil suit against Boeing. Boeing was fighting the suit and SC joined the suit. One of the very first appointments Nikki Haley made was a high power union crusher lawyer for that very thing. 

The NLRB dropped the suit but "retained the right to do it again in the future".

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 03:25 PM (YdQQY)

300

Someone on my Facebook is honestly trying to make the argument that Obama can violate the Constitution to his heart's content because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering

Ahh, yes, the Bickering Clause of the Constitution.

It probably isn't worth your time to point out that the Founding Fathers set up our system to encourage bickering and political stalemates.

 

Posted by: Warden at January 04, 2012 03:26 PM (KSlTc)

301 GOP will fuck this one up, as usual. They already have, McConnell's and Boehner's statements was the typical, uninspiring typical political ad-libspeak that just makes you cringe when you read or hear it.

Posted by: deepelemblues at January 04, 2012 03:26 PM (Jov5i)

302
Hey, here's an idea. How about the Republicans on the Hill stop with the pretend Congress and gavel the real Congress back into session?  That would at least stop any more appointments while they think of what to do next.

The Speaker announced that the House do now adjourn pursuant to section 4(c) of H. Res. 493. The next meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on January 6, 2012

Well, it was just a thought.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 03:27 PM (3wBRE)

303

Why are any of you suprised???

An Illegaly elected President (dual citizen is NOT a Natural Born Citizen) using a Fake Soc Sec number and potentialy a non legal Name (may have never legaly changed back from Barry Soetoro)...

Illegaly appoints a person, who will head an Unconstitutionaly broad new Federal Agency...

What next? Toppleing a UN Nations Government without a declaration of War???? oh... wait.... crap...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 03:29 PM (NtXW4)

304 There are no more hills to die on. We are up to our knees in ocean by now.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 03:29 PM (bxiXv)

305  Defund the Secret Service, maybe that will get the constitutional scholar's attention.

Posted by: Darth Randall at January 04, 2012 07:19 PM (O/onO)

 

Shitty idea.  I don't want the Black Panthers providing WH and presidential security (and we all know that's who the SCOAMF would call).  It could be the beginning of that National Security Force.  And Barky has enough money at his disposal, he could and would do it.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 03:29 PM (OOqdh)

306 Oh, and fuck Scott Brown for supporting this.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 03:29 PM (zLeKL)

307 We are a nation of lawyers, not men!

We need to wait until Barky does something really serious, before we take a stand.

The problem with a "living" Constitution is that it can die rather easily!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 03:30 PM (i3+c5)

308 So he especially wants Congress to fight back?  That's not a reason not to fight it.  Think it through: because he wants a fight (and the power), he will keep doing this until Congress pushes back (or someone with power really pushes back).

He. Will. Keep. Doing. This.

And some of you want to ignore it because...because he will keep doing it?  Bog.

/Battered Republican Syndrome.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 03:32 PM (X/+QT)

309 The problem with a "living" Constitution is that it can die rather easily!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 07:30 PM (i3+c5)

The living constitution dies in 1866? when the 14th amendment was illegally passed and ratified.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 03:33 PM (YdQQY)

310
Battered Republican Syndrome.
Posted by: Tonic Dog




Would explain why Boehner is always wearing dark sunglasses and long sleeve shirts.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 04, 2012 03:34 PM (3wBRE)

311 Would explain why Boehner is always wearing dark sunglasses and long sleeve shirts.

and crying

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2012 03:34 PM (YdQQY)

312 312 Would explain why Boehner is always wearing dark sunglasses and long sleeve shirts.

and crying

Solved!  :-/

Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 03:35 PM (X/+QT)

313 If the President can violate the supreme law of the land and we do nothing to stop it, we are slaves. Be snarky and sarcastic all you want, but we are slaves that find humor in our situation.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 03:37 PM (zLeKL)

314 **So he especially wants Congress to fight back? That's not a reason not to fight it. Think it through: because he wants a fight (and the power), he will keep doing this until Congress pushes back (or someone with power really pushes back).** wow, the left (really, the DNC) sure got a lot of mileage out of that showdown with Newt in 1996. They must really think they win in every situation. That's bullshit of course, too bad the GOP elite believe it more than the DNC.

Posted by: joeindc44 - slightly mellowed tebow crazed rioter at January 04, 2012 03:40 PM (QxSug)

315 Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 07:37 PM (zLeKL)
I would prefer that you use the term "serfs" because the term "slaves" is reserved for others.  However, you may use the term "gallows humor" without additional penalties (at least for a while).

Posted by: Barky O at January 04, 2012 03:40 PM (i3+c5)

316 and snarky and sarcastic by yourself in microsoft word because you will not be doing it at aoshq anymore.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 03:41 PM (loM0R)

317 @ 314

    I find nothing remotely humorous here. I see the country I fought and bled for becoming a travesty, and it appears nothing can be done to prevent this despicable action.

    I don't know what to do within the law to resolve this---do you?

Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 03:42 PM (SAMxH)

318 sadly I will bet that more Americans were aware of verizons attempt to charge a convenience fee, and motivated to sign an online petition condemning it than are aware of or moved by zero's power grab today.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 03:43 PM (loM0R)

319 I don't know what to do within the law to resolve this---do you? Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 07:42 PM (SAMxH) thanks for your service. there is plenty to do within the law, the question is how to we motivate the Congress to do it? It is not an impossible task but one that takes staying power.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 03:45 PM (loM0R)

320 This thread needs a flaming skull.  It would mirror my rage at this power grab.

Posted by: theCork at January 04, 2012 03:48 PM (zL5Q1)

321 I've had enough.  This past year it seems i've been frozen in time.  Unchanging economic misery and humiliation.  I cannot take this communist piece of shit laughing at everyone while he knowingly shreds the constitution.  This is the same guy who dates your ex and comes over to see how you are, while they play grabass on the couch.. in front of you. This man is beneath contempt.

I'm ashamed I have these thoughts for our President.  I never thought our President would actually hate his own country, but he does.  He's a tyrant.  He must be impeached, or some major Machiavellian political maneuvers need to take place to make him overplay his hand.  With the media on his side, with knee pads on, I'm not sure how this will be done.

Maybe people in the media need to actually be victimized by his policies.  I thought the elites in the media would change when their kids were unemployed for long periods of time, but then I realized that media people have nepotism for breakfast, along with sperm.

This IS the hill to die on.  I, along with everyone else who's been in 'economic time-freeze' since his election, need something to energize us again.  I swear this idiot has sucked the life out of people like i've never seen.  most of the people I know are like fucking zombies in despair.  I've never seen so many people out of work for so long.  HOLY SHIT this man is a menace

Posted by: The mall cop movie dude at January 04, 2012 03:50 PM (bcmD0)

322 I don't know what to do within the law to resolve this---do you?
Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 07:42 PM (SAMxH)

What "law" are you referring to?   Are we living in a nation governed by laws? 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 03:51 PM (Ec6wH)

323 Congress needs to hold up all money bills and all appointments until he gets rid of these jerks.
  

Posted by: ex pat at January 04, 2012 03:51 PM (rsOPT)

324  Someone on my Facebook is honestly trying to make the argument that Obama can violate the Constitution to his heart's content because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering. So doing an end-run around Congress is perfectly acceptable because they failed to do their jobs in that they did not give-in to Obama's demands.

*head desk*
Posted by: Miss80s


Shit.  We forgot about the The Bickering Clause.

Never mind.

Posted by: Dang at January 04, 2012 03:52 PM (BbX1b)

325 The fact that Obama and the Dems are trying to spin this blatant violation of our country's most sacred document should be the line drawn. This is it. I have fucking had it. I will be calling my representatives tomorrow and demanding an explanation. That's a start.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 03:53 PM (zLeKL)

326 Someone on my Facebook is honestly trying to make the argument that Obama can violate the Constitution to his heart's content because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering. So doing an end-run around Congress is perfectly acceptable because they failed to do their jobs in that they did not give-in to Obama's demands.

*head desk*
Posted by: Miss80s

miss80s you of all people could make the case , knock em over the head with it.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 03:56 PM (h+qn8)

327 I will be calling my representatives tomorrow and demanding an explanation. That's a start.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 07:53 PM (zLeKL)

I called my freshman rep a little peeved that she hadn't got on board with the call for Holder to resign, she's otherwise been pretty good. I'll be calling and pissed tomorrow.

Not gonna bother with the Sens, both commies, I'd just end up cursing them out the whole time.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 04, 2012 03:58 PM (KI/Ch)

328 What "law" are you referring to? Are we living in a nation governed by laws? Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 04, 2012 07:51 PM (Ec6wH) I have not noticed.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 03:59 PM (bxiXv)

329 It a start. Is our Constitution a good enough hill to die on?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:00 PM (zLeKL)

330 If the Constitution is not a good hill to die on, then nothing is.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 04:02 PM (SAMxH)

331 >>I don't know what to do within the law to resolve this---do you?
Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 07:42 PM (SAMxH)

At a bare minimum  IG you can vote ABO in November and stock up on booze and bullets in the meantime.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2012 04:02 PM (HBqDo)

332 I am mystified why we are supposed to be pragmatic and not elect a conservative because another one looks better to some.
Are the American republican people (i won't even address dems) do we have any strength at all?

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:02 PM (h+qn8)

333  Congress needs to hold up all money bills and all appointments until he gets rid of these jerks.
  

Posted by: ex pat at January 04, 2012 07:51 PM (rsOPT)

 

I be all for it if I thought it would work.  Perhaps they could do it symbolically.  That seems to be the only function congress has now anyway.

What so many people fail to realize is that the SCOAMF and his regime have built, economy (stimulus money/union money) and all, a private government within the DC government.  And this private government is what's ruling us now.  Today is a good example of that.

I think the dem controlled congress knew they were going to lose big-time in 2010, and transfered much of the power of congress over to the executive and DC bureaucracy.  That's where our main problem lies. 

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2012 04:02 PM (OOqdh)

334 330 It a start. Is our Constitution a good enough hill to die on? Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 08:00 PM (zLeKL) At some point politicians here realized that politicians in decadent European socialist systems have it as well or better, so who cares? The "political class" is always a threat to everyone else.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 04:02 PM (bxiXv)

335 We actually have a better case than with Clinton. Clinton did not violate a direct Article of the Constitution.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:05 PM (zLeKL)

336 @332

   That is SOP for normal ops--and right now Luap Nor would qualify for ABO--provided we impeach him 25 minutes after swearing in.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 04:06 PM (SAMxH)

337 Diplomatic Immunity!

Posted by: A Kenyan at January 04, 2012 04:09 PM (Zw/H7)

338 If we can't rally around this, then the Gadsden-waving, liberty-loving Tea Party is dead.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:10 PM (zLeKL)

339

So what???   What are the little limp wristed waifs gonna do about it???   I mean so far no one has stopped him from all the other crap he has pulled, all he has to do now is declare himself king!

Posted by: Africanus at January 04, 2012 04:11 PM (XxCRk)

340 So, this is what living through the end of a civilization feels like. Always wondered if the people were aware when it was happening.

Posted by: Heorot at January 04, 2012 04:11 PM (1bluv)

341

So what???   What are the little limp wristed waifs gonna do about it???   I mean so far no one has stopped him from all the other crap he has pulled, all he has to do now is declare himself king!

Posted by: Africanus at January 04, 2012 08:11 PM (XxCRk)

it's astounding isn't it?

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:12 PM (h+qn8)

342 336 We actually have a better case than with Clinton. Clinton did not violate a direct Article of the Constitution.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 08:05 PM (zLeKL)

Yeah, but that was just because we were racists hatin' on the first black president. No one's gonna dare cross the first muslim president.

Posted by: mugiwara at January 04, 2012 04:14 PM (KI/Ch)

343 No Seriously Obama's Gone Full-Rogue Unconstitional


and ace makes it a headline without a flaming skull. : {


i will look back and say and this was the moment i knew we were fkd.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:14 PM (h+qn8)

344 330 It a start. Is our Constitution a good enough hill to die on? Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 08:00 PM (zLeKL) It is the hill. Once you start making frontal assaults on the plain language of the Constitution in broad daylight in the middle of the week what else is there?

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 04:16 PM (loM0R)

345 It's a shame that the millions of American sheeple that are oblivious to the scale and scope of the ongoing Constitution trashing by the marxist precedent and his czars, can't be enlightened that it's their trusty MFM that are traitorously concealing it from them.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2012 04:17 PM (HBqDo)

346 An impeachment can open in many ways in the House- as long as it begins somewhere in the House. Often the House Judiciary Committee becomes involved at an early stage. Before taking a final vote on whether to impeach a president, the House can vote to authorize its Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee may at this stage conduct hearings and draw up the articles of impeachment. Under the Constitution, the House must vote on articles of impeachment. A simple majority vote can impeach the president-"impeachment" is more of an indictment than a conviction- and send the case to the Senate for trial. The Senate conducts the trial. A prosecution team assembled by the House prsents the evidence for conviction. which requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate. A legal defense team represents the president. The chief justice presides over the trial Normally the vice president presides over the Senate, but he must step aside under the Constitution because he would replace the president if senators vote for conviction. At the end of the trial, the Senate probably would allow senators to debate each article of impeachment before taking a vote.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:18 PM (zLeKL)

347 Wait until you people hear what King Barky has to say about this in his SOTU.  LOL.  Many will be "surprised" ... once again.

Any person who attends that travesty should be run out of town with Barky.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 04:18 PM (X3lox)

348 It is the hill. Once you start making frontal assaults on the plain language of the Constitution in broad daylight in the middle of the week what else is there? ---- Let's roll.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:18 PM (zLeKL)

349 To paraphrase, it's the optics, stupid. It's about winning, and machine politicians know how to do it. Simply put, our guys don't have a clue.

Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 04, 2012 04:19 PM (ybkwK)

350 Just keep on going assholes, both parties. This will come to an end one way or the other, and I`m of a mind it will probably wind up being the other.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 04:19 PM (EP6th)

351 How about just impeaching the appointees (for accepting obviously illegal appointments)? Or will that suggestion make the Speaker of the House cry? Then again, given the weak sauce that is McConnell's statement today, why would Boehner expect McConnell to back him up?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at January 04, 2012 04:19 PM (7EV/g)

352 To paraphrase, it's the optics, stupid. It's about winning, and machine politicians know how to do it. Simply put, our guys don't have a clue. ----- This shit? Yeah, that's not gonna fly anymore.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:20 PM (zLeKL)

353

The question then becomes.... how many of us who took the oath, to DEFEND the Constitution, against Enemies, both Foreign and DOMESTIC, will remember that oath...

 

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 04:23 PM (NtXW4)

354 I wonder where Obama got the idea that the Republicans are pushovers. I can't wait for the payroll tax to become a daily vote so that Obama can run saying "I cut your taxes 200 times!"

Posted by: somebody else, not me at January 04, 2012 04:23 PM (7EV/g)

355 Here's a list of House Judiciary Members I think all we'd need is one member to get the ball rolling.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:26 PM (zLeKL)

356 Here's a list of House Judiciary Members

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 08:26 PM (zLeKL)


Heh.  John Conyers on the first page as the ranking member.  He, of the "Good and Welfare Clause" ...  This nation is so irretrievably f*cked.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 04:29 PM (X3lox)

357 Can't wait until he's deemed himself the winner in 2012, regardless of what the petty formality called voting says.

Posted by: Jellytoast at January 04, 2012 04:29 PM (KMpJH)

358 Heh. John Conyers on the first page as the ranking member. He, of the "Good and Welfare Clause" ... This nation is so irretrievably f*cked. We just need one. Then the committee decides whether or not to continue. I seriously don't see any Republican "no" votes on a motion to proceed...I mean, it's a pretty obvious violation.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:31 PM (zLeKL)

359 Remember how incensed the left got when Obama Joker flyers started showing up after the stimulus was passed?

Those things could start popping up everywhere again.

Posted by: CausticConservative at January 04, 2012 04:31 PM (gT3jF)

360

The question then becomes.... how many of us who took the oath, to DEFEND the Constitution, against Enemies, both Foreign and DOMESTIC, will remember that oath...

 

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 04, 2012 08:23 PM (NtXW4

Many.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 04:31 PM (EP6th)

361 358 Can't wait until he's deemed himself the winner in 2012, regardless of what the petty formality called voting says.

Posted by: Jellytoast at January 04, 2012 08:29 PM (KMpJH)

Hey, now that call a Constitutional duty I'm not willing to cede. But yeah, I'll allow it.

Posted by: Weeper Boehner at January 04, 2012 04:32 PM (KI/Ch)

362 If you aren't going to act in any legal sense, at least you can mock the bastard for being a SCOAMF.

Posted by: CausticConservative at January 04, 2012 04:33 PM (gT3jF)

363 If you aren't going to act in any legal sense, at least you can mock the bastard for being a SCOAMF. And who says we're not?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:35 PM (zLeKL)

364 drudge needs to change the heading on one of its news links from and "unprecedented power grab from congress"
makes it sound as if congress was the villain if the link isn't read.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:36 PM (h+qn8)

365 Why is Obama doing this? Here's why. A trillion dollar stimulus for mortgages. No matter if it's a bad idea moving into the future. whatever gets Obama past the finish line.

Posted by: whatever at January 04, 2012 04:38 PM (O7ksG)

366 I read through a few of these comments. I agree that the way to address this is to take the "boards" and their "regulations" exactly as seriously as I treat the local hobos and their orders to the French Army.

State governments need to declare that the agencies staffed in such a manner are not legitimate agencies. Local police will not enforce their "regulations". Local police will resist armed Federal personnel sent in to do so. Force a constitutional crisis on these assholes - at the state level.

Oh yeah, and some National Guard colonels could pipe up about that oath thingy.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at January 04, 2012 04:39 PM (QQAJP)

367 i have been leary up till now about being crude about the President, but He is indeed. SCOAMF
not the right word He doesn't Fail He does what Is necassary for His ideology.  i no longer think He is dumb or misinformed, this is intentional.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:39 PM (h+qn8)

368 leery*

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:40 PM (h+qn8)

369 Is it "full rogue unconstitutional" to disagree about when Congress is in recess? Is Congress in recess whenever they say they are? Does "recess" actually mean something? What about when absolutely no business is being transacted whatsoever? Is being in session in a merely pro forma way the same as being "in session" de jure? I don't think the answer is obvious. But of course since it is Obama, then he's an unconstitutional renegade bent on illegally taking power and soon he'll be eating our children.

Posted by: Just a guy at January 04, 2012 04:42 PM (gnViO)

370
   Still bound by that oath.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 04:43 PM (SAMxH)

371 I agree that the way to address this is to take the "boards" and their "regulations" exactly as seriously as I treat the local hobos and their orders to the French Army. State governments need to declare that the agencies staffed in such a manner are not legitimate agencies. Local police will not enforce their "regulations". Local police will resist armed Federal personnel sent in to do so. Force a constitutional crisis on these assholes - at the state level. Oh yeah, and some National Guard colonels could pipe up about that oath thingy. This misses the point. Can the President shred the Constitution with impunity?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:43 PM (zLeKL)

372 I read the comments about this on The Hill Blog and I am going to make a prediction.  When Clinton was impeached for lying while under oath, the left thinking dumbasses kept changing the focus to "you can't impeach him for having sex, it's a private matter".  When anyone tried to address the fact that he was being impeached for lying, they would look at you like they did not understand english and then they would say increduously "So you think it's ok to impeach a guy for stepping out? Really?"  The same shit is gonna happen here.  Obama has broken the law and the left has already started by saying "Bush had more recess appts than Obama, get over it".  When you try to point out that he broke the law and they weren't in recess, they'll say "Republicans are cry babies".  I swear, it is as if the left is hypnotized or programmed and completely unable to follow the point.  Mark my words, the MSM will argue it and keep misstating the circumstances.  Unless the Repubs stand up and start screaming, this is going to become as under reported as Fast and Furious.

Posted by: DailyDish at January 04, 2012 04:45 PM (Tl1mu)

373 Is it "full rogue unconstitutional" to disagree about when Congress is in recess? Is Congress in recess whenever they say they are? Does "recess" actually mean something? What about when absolutely no business is being transacted whatsoever? Is being in session in a merely pro forma way the same as being "in session" de jure? I don't think the answer is obvious. -------- Actually, the answer is pretty damn obvious. The answer: "pro forma" means the Congress is in session. In fact, it is in order to meet the requirements of the Constitution. This actually bolsters the argument that Obama violated the Constitution.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:46 PM (zLeKL)

374 108 Posted by: Tonic Dog at January 04, 2012 06:08 PM (X/+QT)


SCOAMF only studied the Constitution so he could figure out how to destroy it.

Adolf Eichmann learned Hebrew, Yiddish and Jewish culture so he could learn how best to exterminate the Jews.

Eichmann and his interactions with Jews are a fascinating story. At first, he was willing to take their money and let them emigrate. When emigration was cut off, then came the "final solution." You can find more at http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzpz2o

I know that this will sound alarmist, but Obama's violation of our rights will only get worse. Right now he's willing to take our money, but what's his "final solution" for us? Conservatives are treated as kooks and crooks by Liberals. Where does it end?

Posted by: Worf the Wonder Klingon at January 04, 2012 04:48 PM (wL5Cc)

375 But of course since it is Obama, then he's an unconstitutional renegade bent on illegally taking power and soon he'll be eating our children.

Posted by: Just a guy at January 04, 2012 08:42 PM (gnViO)

i would consider this an actual well meant comment, but since you ass***es  constantly implied Bush did something illegal and was a Hitler, war monger evil shit from hell, I will not believe one filthy word slipping off your fingers, You are in a whole liars and thieves . go away and sell that sh=t to your fellow sh*tstains  somewhere else where you might be believed!

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:49 PM (h+qn8)

376 370 Is it "full rogue unconstitutional" to disagree about when Congress is in recess? Is Congress in recess whenever they say they are? Does "recess" actually mean something? What about when absolutely no business is being transacted whatsoever? Is being in session in a merely pro forma way the same as being "in session" de jure? I don't think the answer is obvious.

Actually, yes, it is.  The Constitution clearly defines the president's powers regarding recess appointments, but also clearly gives both houses to define their own rules, one of which would be to define what "recess" constitutes.  The houses are in recess whenever they say they are, providing the other is in agreement, e.g. only the house may declare a recess, but the Senate may stay in session if it wishes.  However, the Senate may not declare a recess without the blessing of the house.  Balancing of forces, checking of powers, constant opposition...these are all features of the system as designed, not bugs.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at January 04, 2012 04:50 PM (ND9u8)

377 Someone on my Facebook is honestly trying to make the argument that Obama can violate the Constitution to his heart's content because Congress has made itself irrelevant with their bickering. So doing an end-run around Congress is perfectly acceptable because they failed to do their jobs in that they did not give-in to Obama's demands.

Miss80's....the memo must've gone out because I've seen that same justification in the comments sections of several articles.  I've literally read this same response a couple dozen times. F'ing idiots have no compunction in suggesting it's A-OK to violate the Constitution.  Unbelievable!!  Absolutely stark-raving unbelievable!   

Posted by: Lady in Black at January 04, 2012 04:50 PM (ycuSb)

378 Well... What is Congress planning on doing about it??? Isn't that the only issue that counts at this point? If the House funds Obama's illegitimate flying monkeys, the GOPers are a bunch of chumps.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 04, 2012 04:50 PM (niZvt)

379 Where does it end? It ends when we say it does, and no sooner.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:51 PM (zLeKL)

380 #370, The Constitution gives the Houses of Congress the authority to make their own rules for conducting business. If the Senate says they are in session, then they are in session. It isn't for another branch to tell them otherwise. If Obama thinks they are just playing games then that's a politcal issue he can take to the electorate and run on. But every other president has had to deal with this issue, and believe it or not, there's nothing special about Obama that makes him exempt from it. Except that he's especially vile.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at January 04, 2012 04:51 PM (7EV/g)

381 Where does it end?

It ends when we say it does, and no sooner.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 08:51 PM (zLeKL)

yeah we need to get a pair, of what i'm  not yet sure, but really this is too much. we've almost become numb to the pure arrogance of the left and why? because we sit back and do nothing as IF we are powerless.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:53 PM (h+qn8)

382 State governments need to declare that the agencies staffed in such a manner are not legitimate agencies. Local police will not enforce their "regulations". Local police will resist armed Federal personnel sent in to do so. Force a constitutional crisis on these assholes - at the state level.

Oh yeah, and some National Guard colonels could pipe up about that oath thingy.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at January 04, 2012 08:39 PM (QQAJP)

That`s exactly how it will start, when some State Govenor has a set to do so, and will most likely be driven to it by county Sheriffs driven by the populace to not enforce. Then what.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 04:53 PM (EP6th)

383

That`s exactly how it will start, when some State Govenor has a set to do so, and will most likely be driven to it by county Sheriffs driven by the populace to not enforce. Then what.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 08:53 PM (EP6th)

i guess than enters the dept of Justice to take the state to court.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:55 PM (h+qn8)

384 @381: In fact, neither the House nor Senate can decide on its own whether or not they're in session. They both must agree.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:55 PM (zLeKL)

385 So what exactly is the language in the law he just signed over the weekend that allows him to detain citizens?

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 04:58 PM (loM0R)

386 "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. I think we're good to go.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 04:58 PM (zLeKL)

387 ap

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama recess-appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday, bypassing fierce opposition from Republicans who claim the agency has leaned too far in favor of unions.

The appointments came just hours after Obama used a similar move to install former Ohio Atty. Gen. Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Both moves infuriated GOP leaders, who threatened legal action and warned that Obama was setting a dangerous precedent by ignoring the will of Congress


Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:59 PM (h+qn8)

388 thought it needed to be read again.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 04:59 PM (h+qn8)

389 OK. So at this point, does anyone REALLY believe that Obama is not an enemy of america (lowercase intended)? Does anyone REALLY believe that solid "conservatives", like the great jon kyl (lowercase intended) are not driving in the same car as this POS? The whole thing is a farce, and because this POS is black, it is beyond the law. (This is rayciss BS you say? Racism? Take a look at South Africa) They were waiting for a black liberal to get "there", so that the cowards would just STFU. The cowards did. Nighty night, america...

Posted by: Sweep the leg at January 04, 2012 05:01 PM (2rpjM)

390 yankeefifth
lawfare has a good article, ongoing. on it

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 05:01 PM (h+qn8)

391

i guess than enters the dept of Justice to take the state to court.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 08:55 PM (h+qn

LOL, like by then we really give a shit.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 05:06 PM (EP6th)

392 Too bad Sheets is dead. He would have had plenty to say about the executive trampling on the Senate's Congressional Authority.  Or something.

Posted by: CausticConservative at January 04, 2012 05:07 PM (gT3jF)

393 I've read a few news articles. The spin is horrendous. They can get away with it when the public doesn't understand the Constitution. Congress must be in session every three days. This is required by Article I, Section V. Pro Forma sessions meet this requirement. Obama made the appointment while Congress was in session. Thus, Obama has violated the Constitution.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:13 PM (zLeKL)

394 382 It ends when we say it does, and no sooner.

How about now? It's not too late, is it?

Posted by: the Copts at January 04, 2012 05:14 PM (QQAJP)

395 I am beginning to understand the old Chinese curse: 
"May you live in interesting times and come to the attention of important people!"

I think we have run out of road to kick the can down on just about every front I can think of (financial, legal, judicial, Constitutional, inalienable rights, etc.).

I don't think this will end well.

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 05:16 PM (i3+c5)

396 Way back when, when Congress let Presidents deploy troops to undeclared wars, the Constitution was shredded. This is just more descent into tyranny. Boehner is a useless fool.

Posted by: torabora at January 04, 2012 05:16 PM (1X8jt)

397 391 yankeefifth lawfare has a good article, ongoing. on it Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 09:01 PM (h+qn I will read it. Any cioncidence between that law and this behavior?

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:19 PM (loM0R)

398 397 I am beginning to understand the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times and come to the attention of important people!" I think we have run out of road to kick the can down on just about every front I can think of (financial, legal, judicial, Constitutional, inalienable rights, etc.). I don't think this will end well. Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 09:16 PM (i3+c5) I hate that quote. It has been popping up in my thoughts for the last two years.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:20 PM (loM0R)

399 If the Executive is found to be violating the rights of the Legislative, is it the Judicial branch that sorts things out?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:21 PM (zLeKL)

400 The Kenyan Dictator has spoken.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at January 04, 2012 05:21 PM (HIXUa)

401 I hate that quote. It has been popping up in my thoughts for the last two years.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:20 PM (loM0R)

Didn't say I liked the quote, but it sure seems to be timely ... again!

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 05:21 PM (i3+c5)

402 I will read it. Any cioncidence between that law and this behavior?

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:19 PM (loM0R)

gah, hope not.

Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 05:22 PM (h+qn8)

403 Congress should just close the purse strings to the agency with the illegal appointment.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at January 04, 2012 05:24 PM (HIXUa)

404 Congress should just close the purse strings to the agency with the illegal appointment.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at January 04, 2012 09:24 PM (HIXUa)

Yes, exert that Congressional power over the Fed printing presses.  Oh wait...

Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 05:29 PM (i3+c5)

405 378 Miss80's....the memo must've gone out because I've seen that same justification in the comments sections of several articles.  I've literally read this same response a couple dozen times. F'ing idiots have no compunction in suggesting it's A-OK to violate the Constitution.  Unbelievable!!  Absolutely stark-raving unbelievable!  


They appointed themselves to decide when the Constitution may be broken and when it is a travesty. As long as it helps the liberal cause, it is perfectly acceptable.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 04, 2012 05:30 PM (d6QMz)

406 So the MFM keeps saying the GOP is angry because he made "recess appointments". Except that the fucking Senate was not in recess, so he can go suck a dick.

I'm done. My liberal friends can kiss my ass the next time they talk about how wonderful Barky is.

Posted by: physics geek at January 04, 2012 05:31 PM (llWHs)

407 Article II, Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Hmm...

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:31 PM (zLeKL)

408 The question is, did he convene Congress to push these appointments? If not, he's fucked.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:32 PM (zLeKL)

409 Didn't say I liked the quote, but it sure seems to be timely ... again! Posted by: Hrothgar at January 04, 2012 09:21 PM (i3+c5) did not mean to criticize. it has been like a drum beat that waxes and wanes in intensity. you have a feeling something is wrong but you either are not sure or do not want to believe it is what you think it is.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:34 PM (loM0R)

410 If the Executive is found to be violating the rights of the Legislative, is it the Judicial branch that sorts things out?

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:21 PM (zLeKL)

I would think that would be grounds for impeachment, not going to dig out my Constitution to search, intuitively, I know that shit aint right.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 05:39 PM (EP6th)

411 Hmm...

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:31 PM (zLeKL)

He didn't make any move to adjourn anything.  That would require some formality, I would have to assume.  If he had tried, even the brain-dead Vichy lieutenant McConnell would have known to not even step foot outside of Washington (as they shouldn't have done, anyway).  Barky just said that they looked like they were in recess and then let rip with the proclamations.

When Barky decides to abuse this clause, you can bet your butt it'll be a lot bigger than this.  Forced adjournment ... hmmmm.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 05:39 PM (X3lox)

412

Sounds like The One is having a fit of what psychiatrists call "narcissistic rage", to me.

Oh, and don't you just love how those guys who wave the Constitution (as though it should actually be paid attention to) and express alarm at TRILLION dollar deficits get referred to as a "radical" and obstructionist faction of the Right Wing. Those "whacky" Tea Partiers!

Posted by: Optimizer at January 04, 2012 05:40 PM (As94z)

413

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:32 PM (zLeKL)


Besides.  I really don't think you can forcibly adjourn Congress and then let rip with recess appointments.  THat would be sort of nutty ...  not that the US is bound to reason or anything, these days.  This is the jungle, here.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 05:40 PM (X3lox)

414 I would think that would be grounds for impeachment, not going to dig out my Constitution to search, intuitively, I know that shit aint right. ---- I would imagine this as well, it would be fucked up if a President could run roughshod over Congress while waiting for the Supremes to hear the case.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:40 PM (zLeKL)

415 washington times

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session, albeit a pro forma one without any business transacted.

Senators from both parties - including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate - have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.



Posted by: willow at January 04, 2012 05:41 PM (h+qn8)

416 we do not need the court to intercede in this. the branches are coequal. If Boehner saddles up here this should not be a problem. Indeed this should be a teachable event for everyone that does not appreciate what they have as a result of the constitution, what they have lost over the years through creep, and what this illegal action portends for the future.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:41 PM (loM0R)

417 First Barack Obama failed with the economy, and now he has failed with the Constitution. First he ruined American's businesses and careers with his mismanagement and incompetence. Now he has decided to treat the foundation of our freedom--our cherished Constitution--like a piece of trash. Some have claimed that Barack Obama is an unconstitutional President because of where he or his father were born. I don't agree with that. But I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is an anti-constitutional President, and that is much, much worse.

Posted by: Edj at January 04, 2012 05:42 PM (+QKfp)

418 albeit a pro forma one without any business transacted. pro forma is Latin for "as a matter of form". A pro forma session of Congress is done to meet the requirements of the Constitution. No business need be done. They can be in session for two seconds and then adjourn. This would meet the requirements of the Constitution.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:45 PM (zLeKL)

419 If Boehner saddles up here this should not be a problem. Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:41 PM (loM0R) That's an "if" the size of a small moon.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 05:46 PM (bxiXv)

420 so do we have a con law expert in the thread? Ashamed to admit it but I do not know the answer to this. Does the executive have anything to do with when the Legislative begins and ends sessions. I always assumed that being a coequal branch of government they made their own rules about everything. since zero took office and especially during the debt limit increase talks a lot of the media was talking about how zero might call congress back to town. I did not think he had the power but did not bother to look it up. Joffen, are you a lawyer?

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:49 PM (loM0R)

421 No, I'm not a lawyer.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:50 PM (zLeKL)

422 423 If Boehner saddles up here this should not be a problem. Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:41 PM (loM0R) That's an "if" the size of a small moon. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 09:46 PM (bxiXv) I agree. Maybe we can start giving him some support and motivation to do so. I think he is actually the "right guy" to have in the speaker position at the moment - he has a reputation as being expert at all of the maneuverings and machinations that go along with house rules and procedures. Either way, if I had to cast my lot with zero or Boehner I would go with Boehner.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:51 PM (loM0R)

423 Sounds like The One is having a fit of what psychiatrists call "narcissistic rage", to me.

Kind of a high tone way of expressing it. He's more of a two year old shouting "waahh, mine, mine, gimme" and throwing his sippy cup until his lickspittle aides find a way to give him what he wants to shut him up.

Posted by: Heorot at January 04, 2012 05:52 PM (1bluv)

424 No, I'm not a lawyer. Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 09:50 PM (zLeKL) Just smart. That is good too. Anyone around here a lawyer?

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 05:52 PM (loM0R)

425 Thanks for the compliment, I'm sure there is someone, somewhere looking into this.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 05:54 PM (zLeKL)

426 we do not need the court to intercede in this. the branches are coequal. If Boehner saddles up here this should not be a problem. Indeed this should be a teachable event for everyone that does not appreciate what they have as a result of the constitution, what they have lost over the years through creep, and what this illegal action portends for the future.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 09:41 PM (loM0R)

Dead on, now we find out if our elected will stand or pass the buck ceding more and more power to a branch of government, much as our States have to the Feds. It`s not me, it`s them.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 05:54 PM (EP6th)

427 Judging from the rhetoric unleashed from Boehner and McConnel, they just might impeach (if they can). They got very close to accusing Obama of outright violating the Constitution.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:00 PM (zLeKL)

428 They got very close to accusing Obama of outright violating the Constitution. Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 10:00 PM (zLeKL) The closer they got the closer they'd be to the fact. Why is it so hard for politicians to just *say* things? I know the answer, that was rhetorical.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2012 06:02 PM (bxiXv)

429 431 Judging from the rhetoric unleashed from Boehner and McConnel, they just might impeach (if they can). They got very close to accusing Obama of outright violating the Constitution. Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 10:00 PM (zLeKL) There is a time and place for everything and this is the time and place for questioning this bastard's patriotism and accusing of high crimes. You are not going to get anywhere unless you start telling the truth about what is going on.

Posted by: yankeefifth at January 04, 2012 06:03 PM (loM0R)

430 It amazes me how the same people who are outraged by Obama ignoring the literal text of the Constitution are the same ones who want to destroy the only presidential candidate who actually campaigns on following the literal text of the Constitution.

Romney thinks the individual mandate is conservative.
Santorum thinks the 10th Amendment doesn't limit his fed ideas.
Gingrinch thinks fed judges should be subpoenaed on unpopular decisions.

What makes you think these guys won't abuse this newly discovered executive power if the Republicans don't stop Obama?  

Either you believe in the literal text of the Constitution, or you don't.

Posted by: Classical Liberal at January 04, 2012 06:05 PM (XcLm9)

431 James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election. That's why Congress has the power of impeachment.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:09 PM (zLeKL)

432 I think I found the answer to my question. If the House votes for Articles of Impeachment, it cannot be challenged in court. If the House wants an elected official impeached, then they must stand trial in the Senate. So they do not have to wait for the Supreme Court like I thought.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:14 PM (zLeKL)

433 Going to bed.

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 06:21 PM (zLeKL)

434

Posted by: Joffen at January 04, 2012 10:14 PM (zLeKL)

The House has the sole power of Impeachment (and they can impeach on whatever they think falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors") and the Senate tries the case.  No other branch of government has anything to say about this procedure, save the Chief Justice presiding over the trial, but in the Senate.


Impeachment is the only proper response to this un-Constitutional action and the Judiciary doesn't have f*ck-all to say about it.

Impeachment carries with it no criminal penalties of any sort, so Barky and his junta would have to be criminally tried afterwards in order to receive his just punishment.

Posted by: really ... at January 04, 2012 06:24 PM (X3lox)

435 An unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Posted by: rightlysouthern at January 04, 2012 06:26 PM (EP6th)

436 This government really doesn't fill the ends for which it was created. It is illegitimate, filled with thieves and criminals and needs to be dissolved.

Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at January 04, 2012 06:31 PM (S95wN)

437 If the Repubs were smart they'd have 100,000 people in front of the white house, protesting this illegal action. But they are not smart, so it won't happen. Also a good chunk of them don't give a shit about the constitution.

Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at January 04, 2012 06:37 PM (S95wN)

438 But the Constitution specifies that these recess appointments -- afterthoughts, really -- can be made: During a declared recess of Congress.

Not a problem. The Democrats will just do a Pelosi and deem it recessed.

Presto!

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 04, 2012 07:33 PM (AKuqI)

439 Typo alert: should be Unconstitutional in the headline...

Hasn't he gone off the Constitutional reservation before? seems like he just ignores whatever he feels like ignoring, and there is never a punishment for him.

"We are in the hands of an adolescent. . . ." --Mr. Spock

Posted by: Beverly at January 04, 2012 11:03 PM (1hhUA)

440

Want a shock?  Go ahead and read the National Defense Authorization Act.

If Obama doesn't like you he can send you to jail and throw away the key.

 

 

Posted by: burt at January 05, 2012 06:31 AM (OzqQM)

441 Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! ItÂ’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

Posted by: ipad ebook for download at January 05, 2012 06:34 PM (3OGep)

442 This is an excellent post. It is very informative. Thank you so much. I'll be a regular viewer.

Posted by: Wabi Sabi Love ePub at January 05, 2012 07:40 PM (cqRVE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
346kb generated in CPU 0.2808, elapsed 0.4681 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3941 seconds, 570 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 40262
  • Files: 388
  • Bytes: 1078.8M
  • CPU Time: 49:37
  • Queries: 1194395

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0