Unconstitutional Appointment by Obama

[WyldeShot]

It sounds like our President tried to slip one through the cracks by bypassing the Senate on filling positions on the labor relations panel. I bet your President don't like getting called out!


Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional | Fox News

 

[DragonGunner]

Sad thing its been going on for nearly a year. Interesting what will happen since all but 1 are not qualified now to be there, barry bypassing the senate and Constitution.....hope this is a big blow to barry and co....now lets see if tonight how CBS and company spin it....or even bring it up.

 

[WyldeShot]

Sad thing its been going on for nearly a year. Interesting what will happen since all but 1 are not qualified now to be there, barry bypassing the senate and Constitution.....hope this is a big blow to barry and co....now lets see if tonight how CBS and company spin it....or even bring it up.

You know this will not get any media attention. I bet this story will only stay on Fox's front page for an hour or so.

 

[DragonGunner]

Bill and Hannity will be all over this.....I can't wait to see The Five...the libtard still won't see what he did wrong though...but I like Greg Gutfield.

 

[indykid]

Just because he violated the constitution once doesn't mean he isn't going to do it again... and again... and again.

 

[Oliver]

This story is obviously false. I mean, obama is a super awesomeness Harvard scholar who knowd avout every law, and how to bypass is......right?

 

[WyldeShot]

Just because he violated the constitution once doesn't mean he isn't going to do it again... and again... and again.

There's no way it will happen again because people learn from their mistakes.

 

[Pinchaser]

Does anyone here ever check to see if there are already 14 other threads on the same topic before starting a new one? Of all the gun forums I frequent, this one has to be the worst for this.....

 

[WyldeShot]

Does anyone here ever check to see if there are already 14 other threads on the same topic before starting a new one? Of all the gun forums I frequent, this one has to be the worst for this.....

I am constantly read posts. Typically I check to see if I can find what I am looking for before posting. I did not see anything about this at this time I posted. I will say that I did not spend 30 minutes checking before posting.
Sorry

 

[MikeDVB]

Does anyone here ever check to see if there are already 14 other threads on the same topic before starting a new one? Of all the gun forums I frequent, this one has to be the worst for this.....

Are you making a general statement, or would you care to make a list of posts so that a moderator can merge them?

 

[DragonGunner]

Does anyone here ever check to see if there are already 14 other threads on the same topic before starting a new one? Of all the gun forums I frequent, this one has to be the worst for this.....

Well the link and post the OP started was less than 1 hour old, FOX had just broadcast it. Still looking for the other 13 other story's on INGO posted before this one........maybe its just you....?

 

[Pinchaser]

Are you making a general statement, or would you care to make a list of posts so that a moderator can merge them?

Ummm...a general statement and a request that at least a minimal effort be exerted by everyone before they post to see if the topic is already on the first page of posts, perhaps even in the top 5 at the time you are contemplating adding yet another.....

 

[Redtbird]

um, Pinchaser, your original message about multiple posts on the same subject closely resembles MANY other posts here on INGO on the same topic.

So sayeth the "Redundent Board of Redundacy".

 

[IndyDave1776]

Does anyone here ever check to see if there are already 14 other threads on the same topic before starting a new one? Of all the gun forums I frequent, this one has to be the worst for this.....

Do you ever have anything constructive to add to the discussion (i.e., other than making snarky remarks directed at anyone who doesn't sound like Jay Carney)?

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

In this case I have to, reluctantly, support the President.

Actually, I am not so much supporting the President as I am not supporting the Senate.

I don't think the Senate can have no one in, no one working, nothing being done YET claim to be in session...

I call BS on the Senate.

If the President is legally allowed to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess then I do not believe the Senate can simply claim to be in session all the time.

Note for point of information I am not supporting who the President appointed or why. Only that the Senate should not be allowed to claim they are cooking when no one is in the kitchen (or in front of the grill.)

Regards,

Doug

 

[DragonGunner]

To All,

In this case I have to, reluctantly, support the President.

Actually, I am not so much supporting the President as I am not supporting the Senate.

I don't think the Senate can have no one in, no one working, nothing being done YET claim to be in session...

I call BS on the Senate.

If the President is legally allowed to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess then I do not believe the Senate can simply claim to be in session all the time.

Note for point of information I am not supporting who the President appointed or why. Only that the Senate should not be allowed to claim they are cooking when no one is in the kitchen (or in front of the grill.)

Regards,

Doug

And yet the Federal Court disagreed........government not being able to do anything is usually better anyway.

 

[indytiger]

To All,

In this case I have to, reluctantly, support the President.

Actually, I am not so much supporting the President as I am not supporting the Senate.

I don't think the Senate can have no one in, no one working, nothing being done YET claim to be in session...

I call BS on the Senate.

If the President is legally allowed to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess then I do not believe the Senate can simply claim to be in session all the time.

Note for point of information I am not supporting who the President appointed or why. Only that the Senate should not be allowed to claim they are cooking when no one is in the kitchen (or in front of the grill.)

Regards,

Doug

I am amazed a person using the name Libertarian let alone 01 have your point of view.
Taking it just a litte further, any appointment made while they where sleeping would be just fine.

 

[KellyinAvon]

A "recess" appointment, as in the Senate (as in with advice and consent of the Senate) has to be in "recess", for it to be a "recess appointment". Just because it's racist to disagree doesn't make it constitutional.

 

[dross]

A recess appointment is for the purpose of being able to fill a post that needs to be filled when the Senate isn't in session. It's become a way to put someone in a post for 18 months that you couldn't get through the Constitutional requirement of advise and consent.

The fact that he had plenty of time to make the actual appointment and get it approved but chose to wait for a recess already puts him in the wrong. That the Senate used a procedural technicality to keep him from bypassing the Constitution doesn't somehow put him in the right.

Truly bizarre thinking.

 

[Libertarian01]

And yet the Federal Court disagreed........government not being able to do anything is usually better anyway.

To DragonGunner,

I do not disagree! 100% correct.

I am amazed a person using the name Libertarian let alone 01 have your point of view.
Taking it just a litte further, any appointment made while they where sleeping would be just fine.

To Indytiger,

While I am a Libertarian and believe in less government that does not mean I do not believe in the rule of law. The law, whether we like it or not, allows the President to make recess appointments. If we do not like this the law should be changed. For the Senate to simply claim to be in session when they really are not is what I am oppossed to. If we do not like it we should lobby our legislators to change the law. In my mind the Senate is abusing its position.

A recess appointment is for the purpose of being able to fill a post that needs to be filled when the Senate isn't in session. It's become a way to put someone in a post for 18 months that you couldn't get through the Constitutional requirement of advise and consent.

The fact that he had plenty of time to make the actual appointment and get it approved but chose to wait for a recess already puts him in the wrong. That the Senate used a procedural technicality to keep him from bypassing the Constitution doesn't somehow put him in the right.

Truly bizarre thinking.

To Dross,

I do not disagree with your observation. Each side is playing politics to do what?

Decades ago the Senate was simply interested in answering one (1) important question: is the nominee qualified to do the job? Senate hearings took little time with almost no fanfare. Today the question of qualifications is almost forgotten. It may depend upon whether the nominee prefers blue or green.

You say the Senate "used." My opinion is that the Senate "abused." If the Senate wishes to have nominees appear before them when they are in session perhaps they who have the power in their own home can get their crap together and look at the nominee's qualifications instead of his politics. This goes for Democrats and Republicans.

In the end let us face the reality that whomever the sitting President is - HE WON! In 1992 this was Pres Clinton, in 2000 it was Pres Bush, and in 2012 it is Pres Obama. Naturally their appointees are going to lean their way. I don't disagree with keeping out criminals, incompetents, or severe extremists but the process itself has become very polarized to the point of grinding to a halt.

In the end DragonGunner may have it right: their infighting may(?) be the best thing for us. That doesn't change my mind that the Senate is abusing its power (IN THIS CASE!)

Regards,

Doug