Ace of Spades HQ

January 03, 2012

Obama: The Constitution? That's For Mortals, Not Messiahs Like Me
— DrewM

White House attorneys have concluded they have the legal authority to make a recess appointment despite Republican efforts to block the move, Democrats said Tuesday, and administration officials say they reserve the option to install Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without Senate approval.
...
...the White House has concluded that it can make the appointment even if the Senate has not formally recessed, said one Democrat familiar with White House thinking. Â“They have decided no one can stop them.Â”

If Obama does this it's not because he's all that concerned with getting Cordry in place, it's because he wants to provoke a fight with congressional Republicans. The GOP will be forced to vow to shut everything down they can and that would enable Obama to continue to run against "a do nothing Congress" (even though Democrats control half of it).

Obama would love it if the GOP House actually tried to impeach him. Failing that, his sticking it to the GOP will please his base.

The challenge for the GOP in Congress will be to fight enough to please the base and check Obama but not give him the mud slinging fight he wants/needs. I doubt it's something they will be able to pull off.

Ultimately this is the small ball politics Obama will have to play since he can't actually run on his record. And if has to shred the Constitution in the process? What's the Constitution compared to a God Who Walks Amongst Us?

In fairness, Obama is a miracle worker. He's the only person who could get me to vote for Mitt Romney.

Story via @davidhauptmann

Posted by: DrewM at 02:46 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The peasants deserve no such respect.

Posted by: Big T Party at January 03, 2012 02:50 PM (hC5jI)

2 Yeah, that George W. Bush was a lawless, executive branch power grabbing dictator with utter contempt for the Constitution and precedent. Remember when he went to war without consulting the Congress and made illegal non-recess appointments?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 02:51 PM (7utQ2)

3 Does this mean I don't have to pay my taxes anymore?

Posted by: Christina Hendricks' Mighty Jugs Supports Rick Perry's Hair for President at January 03, 2012 02:51 PM (xMHpX)

4 ...the White House has concluded that it can make the appointment even if the Senate has not formally recessed, said one Democrat familiar with White House thinking. Â“They have decided no one can stop them.Â”

If the next Republican administration isn't throwing these criminals in the hoosegow by the truckload, there may be unsanctioned violence.

Posted by: toby928© at January 03, 2012 02:52 PM (GTbGH)

5 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Orwell wept.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 02:52 PM (7utQ2)

6 Obama has got to be the most narcissistic president ever.

Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at January 03, 2012 02:53 PM (E7I0g)

7 Well played, sir.

Posted by: Hugo Chavez at January 03, 2012 02:53 PM (QKKT0)

8 Impeach? These bastards have now gone too far. I'm in favor of the "Seven Days in May" in option. Google or IMDB it. These bastards make me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 03, 2012 02:54 PM (UlUS4)

9 Disgusting. Oh, and Obama is a stammering Constitutionally obtuse Alinskyite miserable failure

Posted by: Conservative Crank has been pimpin' for Perry since August at January 03, 2012 02:55 PM (1zwZo)

they reserve the option to install Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without Senate approval.

Take that, stupid Senate.

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at January 03, 2012 02:55 PM (O6q63)

11 Was just reading another blog and they talked about the classical "deadly sins" Just reading the list reminded me of someone: Greed, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Irresponsibility/Unreliability (the Greek "Acedia"), Vanity, Pride, Wrath, Gluttony. . . He's got more acedia, vanity and pride than any president we've ever suffered thru, that's for sure. I worry about his wrath too.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 03, 2012 02:55 PM (SB0V2)

12 yep.......i will be able to vote for romney only because of obama.......luap nor on the other hand.....NEVER

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at January 03, 2012 02:55 PM (Ho2rs)

13 Uh how can even Dems approve of this?

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 02:56 PM (vuzx2)

14 Uh how can even Dems approve of this? --- The answer is in the question.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 02:57 PM (zLeKL)

15 Uh how can even Dems approve of this?

Robert Byrd...yes, Robert effing Byrd, used to have weekly conniptions over things that didn't even approach this level of poaching on congressional prerogative.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 02:58 PM (7utQ2)

16 Not unrelated, the MFM must die. Must.

Posted by: toby928© at January 03, 2012 02:58 PM (GTbGH)

17 It's too bad there are no longer any principled Democrats (or media) to keep the blatant criminal in chief in check. They have as much blood on their hands as O does in the attack on our countries institutions.

Posted by: Mayday at January 03, 2012 02:58 PM (orrLR)

Mr. Pink #13, I'm not sure they do. It seems like even the most liberal of them are distancing themselves from Odumbie.

Posted by: rabidfox at January 03, 2012 02:58 PM (3k8I0)

19 Can Congress vote to suspend the salary of the President?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 03:00 PM (i6RpT)

20 Part of my ABO 2012 campaign for the GOP nominee is this:
Think of what this jug-eared jackass has done in his first term, reining in his totally liberal/Soros behavior to win a second term. What will he do when he is king?

Therefore, ABO 2012. Anything else is just tardisil.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 03:01 PM (baL2B)

21 No seriously, just 3-4 years ago Harry Reid or Pelosi kept one person in Congress working so Bush couldn't recess appoint anyone. Now you are saying in 3 years time they will do a complete 180? OK who the fuck am I kidding, the anti-war movement was never really anti-war and stopped protesting wars as soon as Obama won even though he kept the wars going and even started bombing Libya. So these scumfucks dont have principle at all. Just a blatant wish for power.

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 03:02 PM (sb3kT)

22 I wonder if there is any line O is unwilling to cross, or that the Dems/MFM are unwilling to condone. So far there has been no evidence of any. Methinks in the end, they are sowing the seeds of their own undoing, later if not sooner.

Posted by: Mayday at January 03, 2012 03:02 PM (orrLR)

23 the "won" is infallible! he knows how to get the constitution into the shredder quicker than anyone else living or dead( other than marx) .

Posted by: joe in houston at January 03, 2012 03:03 PM (MnSla)

24 Skynet. Japan. Fujitsu contract. Politics will become a distant and quaint memory soon. If it isn't about technology or religion, it just isn't any more. The very worst deadly sin is underestimation and that sin, usually encouraged by a failure of imagination or a misguided belief that things will remain the same, carries a very heavy price.

Posted by: Errol at January 03, 2012 03:03 PM (vewos)

25

AP Washington 01/24/2013. White House attorneys have concluded they have the legal authority to make try and imprison former members of the Obama Administration despite pardons issued by President Obama in the waning hours of his administration, Republicans said Tuesday, and administration officials say they reserve the option to seize the assets of those so charged.

Posted by: toby928© posting from the future at January 03, 2012 03:03 PM (GTbGH)

26 As long as congress doesn't hold him accountable he can do anything he wants. This is the most lawless administration have ever seen. He even puts Clinton to shame.Clinton put Nixon to shame.

We were ready to impeach Nixon. What is the difference between Noxon, Clinton, and Obama? They have D's after their name and are therefore impervious to impeachanite.

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

27
Yep. and just think of the crap he would pull in a 2nd term without caring about re-election. He certainly won't care if the R's have the house and senate, he knows they won't do crap.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 03, 2012 03:05 PM (JYheX)

28 Assuming Odumbass goes through with this - couldn't his illegal appointment be used to redress any decisions/rules/regulations coming out of this organization?

Posted by: rabidfox at January 03, 2012 03:05 PM (3k8I0)

29 22 Remember when the fillibuster was a sacrement of the Senate, and it was a vital tool to stop executive overreach? Remember when war was bad from 2002-2008, but then became a yawn bore snooze fest noone cared about unless it was pointing out how awesome Obama was? Good fucking times. These fucks have no principle, disregard my prior question.

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 03:06 PM (sb3kT)

30 play hardball back.

Impeach Eric Holder. Vote for a day of national apology and mourning for the hundreds killed by Obama's extralegal gun politics.

And for God's sake, if we're going to shut everything down, have that kind of fight, make the stakes real. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Shut it down over spending.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 03:08 PM (rQ/Ue)

31 Constitution? That's like old and shit. Right? I'm pretty sure the Universal Welfare Clause covers this anywayL

Posted by: Shit Ezra Kleiné says at January 03, 2012 03:08 PM (4136b)

32 Vic, it was Mitchell and Dean. That damned Dean.

Posted by: Dick_Nixon at January 03, 2012 03:09 PM (jJTjZ)

33 I guess we are about to find out if the Senate has any remant of self respect. Their reaction will be interesting to watch.

Posted by: Mayday at January 03, 2012 03:10 PM (orrLR)

34
Hey he signed a bill that allows him to indefinitely detain you for any reason whatsoever, has the TSA moving on to auto and train travel, sells guns to drug cartels.... so they are just a few short years from tyranny anyway, whats a little recess appt and hypocrisy to them.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 03, 2012 03:12 PM (JYheX)

35 The GOP will be forced to vow to shut everything down they can and that would enable Obama to continue to run against "a do nothing Congress"

Shut down O's pay, and the VPs pay, and the pay of the office in question. Shut down the travel budget for the President and First lady. Shutdown the WH social budget.

Let em' whine about not being able to throw parties or fly to Spain and see how far it gets them.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 03, 2012 03:12 PM (0q2P7)

36 First off, at least we have a test to see how far Obama can go before the House actually stands up to him. I mean full on, separation of powers battle. Second off, if they don't. We will have further proof that Act of 1871 actually did bury the original Constitution, and the ruse is up. The President is indeed the CEO, and unless removed by the board of directors, he can do whatever he wants. You do notice that Congress never acts against an executive order, ever, no matter which party controls the different branches? Think about that. We are boned.

Posted by: Lord Humungus at January 03, 2012 03:12 PM (ca0m/)

The Obama administration knows that with the MSM on their side, this battle they will win. It's turning into a cheap banana -republic movie script OR worse.. 7 Days in May, except of course there is no military coup here... just a leftist administration willing to go to ANY length to get what they want. It's the natural extention of PC group-think.

Obama is not stupid. He is tearing at the fabric of government, daring the ones who uphold the rules and the constitution to attack him so he can play the victim. Next step ??

This is the psychology of fighting a race riot. As authorities use force to maintain order, the rioters claim injustice and victimization. This is the authorities using the power of the press to turn our society on it's head... or am I misreading all of this?

Posted by: Yip in Texas at January 03, 2012 03:13 PM (cQhQZ)

38 If I understand things correctly, Obama can pardon anyone for anything that they were indicted for before his last day in office -- but if the indictment is filed the day after, any pardon would have to be performed by the new President......

Maybe there's a reason nobody is getting indicted for this stuff now.

Posted by: cthulhu at January 03, 2012 03:15 PM (kaalw)

39 This is the same old from him. When are we going to get an Iowa thread. Prediction: Paul wins but Perry exceeds expectations.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 03, 2012 03:16 PM (FKQng)

40 I guess we are about to find out if the Senate has any remant of self respect. Their reaction will be interesting to watch. Posted by: Mayday at January 03, 2012 07:10 PM

I'd be upset, but, you know, pomegranate season and all.

Posted by: Harry Reid at January 03, 2012 03:16 PM (lXi+d)

41 Perry exceeds expectations. I sure hope so.

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 03:17 PM (zLeKL)

42 "Maybe there's a reason nobody is getting indicted for this stuff now.

Posted by: cthulhu at January 03, 2012 07:15 PM (kaalw)"

Hmmm. Not a bad point.

But they don't have to indict on every possible charge.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 03:17 PM (rQ/Ue)

43 has the TSA moving on to auto and train travel

Reminds me of a hippie-dippie liberal who argued with me that the next Democrat president would stop all of that intrusive TSA stuff -- it would all be paradise after George Bush stepped down.

Good times. Good times.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 03:18 PM (73tyQ)

44 33 I guess we are about to find out if the Senate has any remant of self respect. Their reaction will be interesting to watch.

Congress showed some outrage when Obama abused signing statements with the omnibus bill*, but they obviously took no actions.

*He was too cowardly to veto it.

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

Eye am the Won you've been waiting for.

Go Orunj!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at January 03, 2012 03:19 PM (CSyi3)

46 So if BO goes thru with it and appoints this guy, would a member of the Senate have standing to sue?

Posted by: Mike in CFL at January 03, 2012 03:20 PM (motsG)

47 There is just too much Constitution-loving going on here.

Posted by: Joy Behar at January 03, 2012 03:21 PM (UR5vq)

48 So if BO goes thru with it and appoints this guy, would a member of the Senate have standing to sue? Posted by: Mike in CFL at January 03, 2012 07:20 PM (motsG) Sue who? For what?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 03:22 PM (i6RpT)

49 "...standing to sue?"

If a citizen of the United States of America, doesn't have standing to sue, who the hell does? But then again, anyone who brings suit against Obama, doesn't have standing to sue. So...there you have it.

Posted by: jem at January 03, 2012 03:24 PM (0oYHO)

50 You do notice that Congress never acts against an executive order, ever, no matter which party controls the different branches? Think about that.

We are boned.

Ultimately all of politics is a substitution for violent means in solving social disputes. All means of force are controlled by the President, unless Congress wants to play the impeachment card and press for a Constitutional crisis that could lead to civil war they are impotent when it comes to dealing with a dictatorial President that refuses to respect limits to his power.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 03, 2012 03:24 PM (0q2P7)

51 36 minutes and counting until the first, preliminary, initial, breaking numbers from Iowa give people heart attacks until everybody settles down and starts actually counting. Look for reports of a "surprising burst of enthusiasm for XXX!!" whenever applause can be heard in the background.
I'm also kind of looking for Paulian interfero-bots in the background.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 03:25 PM (Qjh0I)

52 If a citizen of the United States of America, doesn't have standing to sue, who the hell does? But then again, anyone who brings suit against Obama, doesn't have standing to sue. So...there you have it. Posted by: jem at January 03, 2012 07:24 PM (0oYHO) Sue? What are you gonna sue the President for? Acting unconstitutional? That is called an 'Impeachment".

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 03:25 PM (i6RpT)

53 Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 07:18 PM (73tyQ)

Shouldn't you be caucassing?

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 03:26 PM (GZitp)

Obama can do whatever the fuck he wants right now.

Who's going to stop him?

Posted by: ErikW at January 03, 2012 03:27 PM (tM+Q/)

55 Congress isn't going to do jack about it. I wish I was wrong, but that's the way it is. The only way to stop it would be if state governors started announcing that they would not recognize these officials as legitimate appointments and threatened to arrest them on sight.

Posted by: Alex at January 03, 2012 03:27 PM (+1TUS)

56 Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 07:25 PM (Qjh0I)

Sorry, but I will be extrapolating the end of the world from the first 200 votes.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 03, 2012 03:28 PM (nEUpB)

57 I am not very smart, being a bible clingin gun totin son of a bitch. But i think what gets up my crawl the most is the simple fact that , it seems to me that we give up..So easily. Oh obama says, oh obama does, oh the dems won. I say fuck that, and am reminded of one of my favorite quotes " did the germans win pearl harbor" ..
Fuck the MSM. Are we afraid to go after them ? Let me think we got Ace, hot air, we got um , newsbusters we got all we need. Remember we are the silent majority and it is time we reared our ugly fucking heads...Now see, told ya I wasn't really smart and I can tell ya one more thing . Out here in Gods country Perry is the only way to go

Posted by: larrys lost leg at January 03, 2012 03:28 PM (E504d)

58 The best things the Republicans can do, on this is for the house to stay quiet, it ain't their game, and for conservative news outlets to push the story, and then get Harry Reid to either condone or deny this appointment, then, ask what he is going to do.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 03, 2012 03:28 PM (0q2P7)

59 The 11th Circuit ruled in favor of one of Bush's appointments that was being filibustered several years ago. The ruling applies today too.

"Furthermore, what we understand to be the main purpose of the Recess Appointments clause -- to enable the President to fill vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government -- supports reading both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of the clause."

(Evans v. Stephens)

Posted by: Clarence at January 03, 2012 03:29 PM (z0HdK)

60 Not to worry, I have some steely sharp rhetoric I'm ready to wield.

Posted by: Mitch McConnell at January 03, 2012 03:29 PM (GZitp)

61 Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 07:25 PM (i6RpT)

True, but as we found with Billy Jef, impeachment has no meaning.

Posted by: jem at January 03, 2012 03:29 PM (0oYHO)

The Constitution what I says it means, no more and no less!

I'm a "Constitutional scholar," ya know.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 03, 2012 03:29 PM (okLh1)

We are boned.

^_**Sigh_^** -

I miss Reggie.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at January 03, 2012 03:29 PM (CSyi3)

64 Every day I am reminded more and more of the last few decades of the Roman Republic. The only thing left is the acceptance by both sides of violence as a legitimate form of political expression, and once that happens we're finished.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 03, 2012 03:29 PM (diO4R)

65 Fuck them all if they allow this over reach to stand. I'm to damn old for this crap.

Posted by: Gmac at January 03, 2012 03:30 PM (kVUiz)

66 Out here in Gods country Perry is the only way to go Posted by: larrys lost leg at January 03, 2012 07:28 PM (E504d) G-D's country? Is Israel the 51st State yet?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 03:30 PM (i6RpT)

67

Between the beginning of the Reagan presidency and the end of the George W. Bush presidency, it appears that the shortest intersession recess during which a President made a recess appointment was 11 days, and the shortest intrasession recess during which a President made a recess appointment was 10 days.

So, unprecedented again.

Posted by: toby928© posting from the future at January 03, 2012 03:31 PM (GTbGH)

68 34 Hey he signed a bill that allows him to indefinitely detain you for any reason whatsoever

H.R. 1540 Sec. 1032:

APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.Â—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.Â—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.Â—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 03, 2012 03:31 PM (d6QMz)

Posted by: Miss80s at January 03, 2012 07:31 PM (d6QMz)

Ms 80's bringing the noise and the funk...er, truth.

Posted by: garrett at January 03, 2012 03:33 PM (CSyi3)

70 conservatives have become a bunch of fuckin pussies. simply fcking amzing. Think about it, it is obambi. the worst fcking pres in history.... no jobs, highest debt ever, hatesd america and we can't come together and beat him. fucking amazing

Posted by: larrys lost leg at January 03, 2012 03:35 PM (E504d)

71 I sat in the lunchroom at work today with a guy who asked me to name one bad decision Obama has made. I told him that I was only seven years from retirement, so there wasn't enough time. His response? "I didn't think you could." My response? Facepalm, a slight feeling of nausea, and a firm conviction to move across the river from Illinois to Missouri. He concluded by pointing out that I am overly critical based on the "real experts at CNN".

Posted by: Radar at January 03, 2012 03:35 PM (8xYyJ)

72 Every day I am reminded more and more of the last few decades of the Roman Republic. The only thing left is the acceptance by both sides of violence as a legitimate form of political expression, and once that happens we're finished.

All it takes is one side. And one side already has and is just waiting for an opportunity, a weakness, in civil order.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 03, 2012 03:36 PM (0q2P7)

73 SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 03, 2012 03:39 PM (d6QMz)

74 no one follows EOs, just ask all those gitmo detainees.

Posted by: dudeonbreak at January 03, 2012 03:42 PM (BRa9r)

75 33 I guess we are about to find out if the Senate has any remant of self respect. Their reaction will be interesting to watch.

Posted by: Mayday at January 03, 2012 07:10 PM (orrLR)

Self-respect? From a body that is actually stupid enough to elect Harry Reid "Majority Leader?"

Posted by: filbert at January 03, 2012 03:42 PM (smvTK)

Self-respect? From a body that is actually stupid enough to elect Harry Reid "Majority Leader?"

I'm just hoping we don't get an Enabling Act.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 03, 2012 03:44 PM (okLh1)

77 That was a formatting fail on my part. Also, that section in the final bill is 1022.

Posted by: Miss80s at January 03, 2012 03:49 PM (d6QMz)

"The challenge for the GOP in Congress will be to fight enough to please the base and check Obama but not give him the mud slinging fight he wants/needs. I doubt it's something they will be able to pull off."

Huh? And you guys say Romney is soft? Fight enough to please the base? Are you f'n kidding me? How about the GOP tell it like it is to the public and call out President Politics on once again playing politics. Obama plays politics with everything. Republicans have more than enough evidence of this. The GOP must always be on offense. This administration and his thug re-election strategists are idiots. If you can't stay on offense against this clown, who can you stay on offense with? Give him what he wants- a fight and clean his clock.

Good Lord.

Posted by: Pete_Bondurant at January 03, 2012 03:51 PM (Q4jrq)

79 One of the Presidential candidates needs to step up to the mic and announce that if this guy accepts the position that he will be hauled before a military tribunal on charges of treason. Then he needs to go on with anyone who helps with enforcement of any rules or regulations will also be charged and be put in front of a military tribunal. Finally he needs to look right into the camera and declare that any judge who interferes will be arrested and take their spot in front of the aforementioned tribunal and if found guilty shot as soon as possible. That should make them think twice.

Posted by: southdakotaboy at January 03, 2012 03:53 PM (Ur6Wj)

80 ...state governors started announcing that they would not recognize these officials as legitimate appointments and threatened to arrest them on sight

Speaking of states acting as if they had cajones, the Texas House passed a number of conservative bills, such as the anti-TSA groping bill, but Dewhurst, the man who would replace Kay Barely Republican. killed them in the Texas Senate. If we don't act soon to kill this Dewhurst senate candidacy in the crib the word Dewhurst is going to become a word of curse on par with Snowe.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at January 03, 2012 03:54 PM (dBvlk)

81 Dewhurst. Dewhurst. That name has a certain ring to it.

Posted by: zombie Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling at January 03, 2012 03:58 PM (sHY5w)

82 That was a formatting fail on my part. Also, that section in the final bill is 1022.

Yes I actually had to reformat it because of how it read.
The exemptions are stupidly inserted.

It reads,

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of         Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

        (A) ...are in AQ

   (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- a bunch of non pertinent legaleeze

    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

So (b) exemptions are not part of the (a) paragraph that establishes the requirement. It should have read instead to be clear,

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2)...

    (2) ...

(3) ...

    (4) EXEMPTIONS.

        (A) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

        (B) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

        (C) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 03, 2012 03:59 PM (0q2P7)

83 Obama can do whatever he wants; appoint people, kill people, indefinitely detain Americans. He could rape Katie Couric on national television and Republicans wouldn't impeach him. They're too pussy.

Posted by: someguy at January 03, 2012 04:03 PM (sEXZ/)

84 All it takes is one side. And one side already has and is just waiting for an opportunity, a weakness, in civil order.

Yeah, I guess so, though I shamefully admit that I would not mind a Sulla right now.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 03, 2012 04:04 PM (diO4R)

85 Republicans wouldn't impeach him.

Impeachment shouldn't be partisan.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 03, 2012 04:08 PM (0q2P7)

86 As I recall (someone correct me if I'm wrong) but didn't Democrats go after the Bush White House attorneys for the opinions they issued? I seem to remember that they had troubles afterwards with the Bar, etc. So if the current White House attorneys are saying that the President can violate, er, go around the Constitution in this way to put through a recess appointment, shouldn't there be consequences? Or am I mis-remembering?

Posted by: Steve White at January 03, 2012 04:13 PM (5OLJF)

87 Well, nobody said a damn thing while he tore up GM bondholder contracts, bombing Lybia without even talking to congress, this is just an appointment, so no biggie.

Posted by: Schwalbe at January 03, 2012 04:39 PM (IxGUR)

88 This is why I can't get on board with Santorum. His complaints that Perry needs to realize he's not in Texas anymore when Perry was calling this administration out really bugged me.

Yes, what we need are new leaders who recognize just how dire and extreme this admin is, from head to tow. Yes, what we need are leaders who say some of this stuff is actually illegal. We do not need people who claim such comments are just like Kucinich trying to impeach Bush over Iraq. No, it's not really the same with reversed partisanship.

Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 04:59 PM (rQ/Ue)

89 snicker, DrewM said small ball, snicker.

If even one of those 'house' republicans thinks they have a gnat's eye's chance at reelection, they had better start some serious war with the 'won'. I know bone-brainer won't actually call for a vote for impeachment articles to send to the Senate. But, this has never been about obowmao. This is about OUR HOUSE!

Get it right or get out of town.

Posted by: Blacksmith8✡ at January 03, 2012 05:25 PM (Q1qy3)

Most politicians won't call out Obama on his

illegal moves, because of

FORC--- Fear Of Race Card.

Meanwhile we're getting FORCed

Posted by: seamrog at January 03, 2012 05:33 PM (XOQah)

91 Defund, don't impeach.

Posted by: Last night's special guest star at January 03, 2012 05:58 PM (qdY+L)

92 Its Pleasure to understand your blog.The above articles is pretty extraordinary, and I really enjoyed reading your blog and points that you expressed. I really like to appear back over a typical basis,post a lot more within the topic.Thanks for sharingÂ…keep writing!!!

Posted by: ePub ebook for android at January 03, 2012 06:18 PM (jct/m)

No, the challenge for the GOP in Congress is to fight hard enough, smart enough and courageously enough to beat Obama. This is done by arguing with him publicly. It is done by arguing with reporters publicly. It is done by hitting your message, over and over, until it gets past the media philter and people start getting it. It means hitting your message in alternate media, Facebook, talk radio, ads, speeches. It means believing you are right so much that you are willing to fight Obama to defeat him, not being so scared of him and the media that you try to appease your base while basically caving to him. Your approach involves constant retreat, which is how we got here in the first place. Fighting back, and taking the fight directly to Obama and the media, is the only way to ever win.

Posted by: Joe Cor at January 03, 2012 07:23 PM (04rW3)

94 537 people are elected to serve in the US government. All the rest are hired or appointed and many more are simply gifted jobs due to being related or tied at the hip to one of those elected. Yet it seeems that 536 ( 535 if you don't count VP JackAss) can't muster any resolve, claim any power or quote any law to stifle this one elected clown from doing any damn thing he wants. SIMPLY FUCKING AMAZING. WHY VOTE,SERIOUSLY,,,WHY????

Posted by: Rich K at January 03, 2012 07:42 PM (X4l3T)

95 Congress should make the position a GS-1 pay scale, then see how long this turd stays.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2012 07:56 PM (oSYdE)

96 Obama getting me to vote for Romney is a miracle? That's chump change. Obama could get me to vote for a syphilitic camel with lots of sand fleas--if the camel was running against Obama.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at January 03, 2012 08:38 PM (3ESDJ)

97 This is such a Great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. It gives in depth information.

Thanks for this valuable information.

Website Design Bangalore

Posted by: Domain Registration at January 03, 2012 09:57 PM (GEGD/)

98 I'm confused. I'm not sure I should be outraged by this. How is this different than say, John Bolton's recess appointment?

Posted by: Dave C. at January 04, 2012 04:45 AM (rgXdB)

99 "The challenge for the GOP in Congress will be to fight enough to please the base and check Obama but not give him the mud slinging fight he wants/needs. " It's a fool's fight. The GOP needs to stop triangulating and devote some time to actually governing. Every time we see one of these manufactured crises, the congressional Republican leadership have preemptively surrendered simply to avoid looking like big meanies on the evening news. The resulting news stories promptly explain how the heroic administration and their fearless allies in congress foiled the mustache-twirling GOP at the very last instant, saving us all from certain doom. The media have no interest in honest reporting and will happily repeat completely the opposite, as in the recent SSN withholdings debate. And what do they get from this strategy? Nothing. Less than nothing: The Democrats breeze through with ruinous policies that hurt people and dangerous precidents that hurt the country. The false media narrative is reenforced and unchallenged. And the GOP has yet again pissed off their constituents, while the Democrats consolidate their own power base. When you know the game's rigged, you need to stop playing. Do what you were elected to do and act out of principle and govern on the basis of law. At least that way you have a fighting chance of actually accomplishing something.

Posted by: Galos Gann at January 04, 2012 05:26 AM (T3KlW)

100
In fairness, Obama is a miracle worker. He's the only person who could get me to vote for Mitt Romney.

I hadn't ever thought of it that way. We should support our Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure! He may not be much, but by gum, he's ours!

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at January 04, 2012 05:43 AM (1hM1d)

101

When Congress created yet another 'bureau' or 'agency' just what the hell did they expect?!? King Putt will stack the deck in EVERY agency towards fulfilling his promise to take America down a notch or seventy.

Wait 'til Romney is President. He'll create eleventy MORE agencies. It's what RINOs do ya know.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at January 04, 2012 07:22 AM (EhYdw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

129kb generated in CPU 0.18, elapsed 0.2943 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2581 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.