Obama does not want to work with anybody. It is his way or not at all.

Agreed Terry. This is so much to do about nothing. Just a bunch of pissed off baggers who now have to explain to their masters how they now will have someone watching them. He should have done this sooner.

What make it so funny is how many of these appointments Ronnie Regan and W made.

Let the whining begin!

The bigger constitutional question may boil down to whether ordinary Americans want to be governed by nine unelected 'persons' whose impartiality is entirely questionable. Sadly several members of SCOTUS have brought the institution into considerable disrepute. As a litmus test, for example, which of the nine would you buy a used car from?

Yeah, thought so.

Well if this is just a bunch of Pissed off Baggers then What were the Democrats in 2007 and 2008? It was The Democrats that inveneted the "pro forma" gimmick to prevent Bush from making any Recess Appointments.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

On at least three occasions, the Senate has used procedural tools to prevent the occurrence of a
recess of more than three days for the stated purpose of preventing such
appointments: the 2007 Thanksgiving holiday period, the period between the first and second
sessions of the 110th Congress, and the 2008 Presidents Day holiday period. In each of these cases, the Senate met in pro forma sessions (during which no business was to be conducted) every three or
four days over the course of what otherwise would have been a longer Senate
recess. The President made no recess appointments during these periods.

Democrats invented this gimmick to Prevent Bush from making any recess appointments which he didn't.

Whats wrong you dont like Playing by your own rule book. You come up with a gimmick to Block a Republican President but when the Republicans use the same Gimmick it doesnt apply to you?

If this gets to the Supreme Court, it will be overturned. Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and especially Scalia and Thomas, are excellent examples of people with agendas who deliberately legislate from the bench. They've done incredible damage to our democracy and electoral process, time and again, which is turning this country into a plutocracy. And all we can do is stand by and watch. These far right ideologues and NOT elected, they're appointed by presidents and confirmed by Congress. So a right wing Congress and a right-wing president can stack the Court for years with even MORE ideologues.

This is why I'm no longer a Democrat and will never vote Democrat again. You use gimmicks like this to stop Republicans from getting anything done. Then when Republicans use the same gimmick your excuse is, "it wasn't ok then, I'm glad Obama's stepping up now" BS.

Where was your sense of "ethics" in 2007 and 2008? Obama was in the Senate in 2007 and 2008 so why didn't he step up then and say "No". Oh thats right it wasnt convenient then to have "ethics" and now it is.

The fact aht this is a new CAbinet Position that Obama hasn't been able to get filled for over a Year and a Half, Meaning he could never get his own Senate to work out a compromise, shows how Obama is not qualified to lead the U.S. much less anything else.

The sooner he goes back to "Community Organizing" the better.

Well Terry, ca,

It's a two way street.....does this President actually include the Republicans into the process, or is he happy to exclude them? It would seem that he, the Constitutional Professor, belives the rules of law don't apply to him.

So, will the Democratic Senate, led by that dynamic Harry Reid, do something about this, or be happy they don't have to make a decision, as they have not done with the budget?

Sorry David Noah, but W. made 171 recess appointments.

And, Old Fat guy, the republicans are the ones unwilling to work. They won't let anything come up for an up or down vote because they are afraid to lose.

Great Job Mr. President... Now, while the GOP are still there or still gone (I wish the GOP would make up their minds on that issue, your either on vacation or you are at work) Go ahead and pass that Jobs Bill and your Debt Reduction Bill. We have your back!! Again, Great Job.

Let the showdown begin. It will prove once and for all.. the DO NOTHING but whine and complain republicans are not willing to compromise on anything.

Don't feel nice when the shoe is on the other foot, I think we were all wide awake when it happened under BUSH .......... LMAO

TO: Terry-Ca who wrote:

"The bottom line is that the extreme right wing hate this president... He's made a recess appointment like all other presidents have done...

Now if congress would get their act together and work with the president instead of against him, this whole country would benefit from it... I just think they hate him too much to work with him..."

Well but THEY don't have the right to make their own personal pick of who is going to be President of the United States, WE DO, and it is their obligation and their sworn oath to work with whomever is the POTUS.

If they are not able to work with a democratically elected President, they need to RESIGN immediately!

Obama / Biden 2012

A legal showdown appears likely over the Cordray appointment, given the strength of Republican (selective) outrage over Obama's action.

Do these tools know that their beloved Reagan made 240 recess appointments? Oh, the drama...

The key word here is "vacancy". The law says nothing about filling a new post. That is the job of the Senate. In this case, a Democrat controlled senate, where Obama did not have enough votes to get his guy in.

\The rifht wingnuts and the leftwingnuts on this board abound. It is a shame the vitrol that spews forth from the ignorant. it's like a bunch of 12 year olds ( which half probably are) fighting over nothing.

Time for the obstructionists from the Party of No to admit they've lost this round. Did they complain when Bush used this power 99 times? (Sound of crickets...)

Get used to President Obama, folks. There's not one of the Grand Obstructionist Party's fair-haired boys who can beat the POTUS in 2012. I predict the GOP takes huge hits in the Congress and Senate as well. Bye, Boehner... Oh, boo hoo!

JS in SD,

Couple points:

1) The reason the Senate is in pro-forma session is because the House did not "approve" of them going into recess...however stupid that is. It IS a partisan thing. Harry Reed would have gladly recessed if not for Repubicans preventing it in the House.

2) 53 votes for Cordray mean that except for Republican filibuster, Cordray would have passes confirmation no problem reservations of 47 or not.

3) off tipic, but deportations are WAY UP under Obama. What are you complainging about (I think I'm right to assume you LIKE high levels of deportations).

4) Obama CAVES all the time. He's no dictator. That's ridiculous. I'm happy for ONCE he did something that shows he has SOME cajones.

Terry, here's the bottom line. When the Republicans are in charge of your Healthcare, you are going to wish they weren't. Thank Obama for that. When the Republicans start locking up people indefinitely for not going along with their interpretation of the HealthCare Bill, then you can thank Obama for that one. The Abortion issue is so easy for me, it's not what the current administration will do, it's what the one in the future will do. If you give up your choice, whether you're against or for abortions, then you give up that choice for the future. Look at China, forced abortions anyone? Don't give up your rights and stop supporting Obama, he's taking away our rights, just as his predecessor did.

As I read from one republican strategist, this is Obama trying to pick a fight with republicans in an election year and this will not turn out well for the republicans in the public eye. He felt like republicans should ignore this attempt and keep the focus. Oldman I think you might be getting too specific when it doesn't say that it doesn't apply to new posts, the law is to keep the government running while they are in recess half the year.

The fact is republicans have done this more than democrats in the past and if you want tit for tat, the republican blocking consumer advocacy is just going to look like more catering to wall street at the detriment of the rest of America. If the supreme court has a problem with it, they probably should have addressed a long time ago.

It's kinda like the democrat caper out in Mass a few years ago when they wanted to change the way a senator is replaced so a Repub couldn't get the seat they thought would be vacant when their guy won the Presidency. Ha Ha Ha.....................liberals.............................

I think the repubs are just upset they didn't think of this first. The fact of the matter is they are trying with all their might to hold the economy back in the hopes that they can win the election and then claim all the credit, if you can't see that you are blind. Government's job is to look out for 99% of the population, not 1%, and looking out for 99% of Americans is exactly what the President's appointment does.

Mr O you need to go , real arragoant , he acts more like a dic..tator than a prez. at least when Bush was in there he got the gas prices down, this has been the longest time gas has been over 3 dollars a gallon and its killing us , I cant afford to do anything but put money in the gas tank , no eating out , no new clothes , no movies and no travel anymore because of this administration. now China will get the oil from Canada because this prez doesnt care what you have to pay for gas because we are buying his and his famalies.

Wayne, for a person belonging group of people that don't want government to interfere in anything, you sure seem eager to get him to interfere in the oil industry. Funny how you want government to interfere in the things that suit your needs, but despise it interfering with things on other citizen's behalf. The repubs keep saying "don't tread on me" while constantly treading on other people.

I think the reason this was done is because Congress (the Republicans mostly) doesn't want the position filled at all. They oppose the agency, so they won't approve anyone and nothing can get done.

Yes, the Democrats started the practice of not recessing. I think we would hear complaining no matter which side tried to end the practice, but the core issue is that this consumer agency needs someone appointed and this is the only way it will happen.

I for one believe we need a consumer watchdog because companies that have a choice between doing what is right and doing what makes the most profit will choose money every time. Making a profit AND doing the right thing is better than making more money and doing the wrong thing.

David Noah:

The President IS trying to organize a community - a very large community - called the United States. When you write,

"This is why I'm no longer a Democrat and will never vote Democrat again."

you have absolutely no credibility. No one who was a Democrat would ever find today's Republicans representing anything more than ideologues, crackpots, and outright liars.

You may have been registered as a Democrat once upon a time, but underneath that facade there was a very dishonest Republican wannabe trying to get out. I am not a Democrat, but I sure wouldn't want you on my side. Stay on the right-wing where dishonesty is a virtue.

The republithugs complain that they WERE in session? I always thought that if the House or the Senate were in session there would actually be some work done. What kind of work can be accomplished in 31 seconds? I guess they are like I have heard for years-- WORK IS A DIRTY FOUR-LETTER WORD. Work fascinates ME-- I can watch it for hours!

Wayne 3043511, "at least when Bush was in there he got the gas prices down". Yes that's true. And how did he do that. Well in 2004 they magically came down right before the election. Then like magic again they went right back up in 2005. Then he did a really great job of getting gas prices down by plunging the world into a recession.

On the oil front China will get the oil from Canada if they are willing to pay more and for no other reason. You guys don't understand that the US does not have any control over any of the oil drilled or refined in the US. The oil companies do. You want control? Nationalize the oil companies. Do you know what the biggest export the US has right now? Gasoline. Why are we exporting gasoline because WE have no control over where it goes. The oil companies do. Please do a little research before you start quoting Rush.

Whats funny about this, is the President is trying to move forward on this. Hes trying to do his job. The GOP could give a $h!^ about whether or not anything gets done. They are so rabid in their desire to get Obama out of office, they are willing to go to the mat and fight tooth and nail to prevent him from staffing an agency that is supposed to protect us, that means you and I, from predatory practices of corporations around this country.

Instead of stepping up to the plate and doing whats right for the nation, the GOP would rather point fingers and do nothing but make trouble where none should have been had. They could have dealt with this in the last year but they'd rather obstruct the President and protect their wealthy crooked friends.

It is so shameful that people should feel that way towards America. We have created monsters and now we have to live with it. It sucks.

wayne::: Yes, when Shrub was in there maybe gas prices went down. But GWBUSH got us into TWO of his illegal wars, didn't put the cost of his wars into any budget and his two wars cost us THOUSANDS of deaths, more thousands of injured, many coming home with PTSD.

We can go back to $2.00 a gallon gas that your savior had-- and go back to his ILLEGAL WARS.

And don't forget HIS unfunded Medicare Part D. Oh you don't know about that? Ask a senior citizen how that hurt his pocketbook.

No, I'd much prefer to pay a slightly higher price for gas than have to attend funerals for guys killed in GWBUSH's illegal wars-- including my grandson's. Thank God he has come home walking on two legs!

My goodness you liberals are an odd lot. The US Senate is run by DEMOCRATS, not Republicans. Harry Reid decided to adjourn and his caucus agreed. And the fact that Obama has used the recess appojntment power less than Bush 43 doesn't mean that THIS appointment is constitutional. But it could mean that republicans work with this president on his appointments better than democrats worked with Bush 43. It's logic, my liberal friends...take a minute to think it through.

The US Senate didn't agree to this appointee, and it was not in recess. I can't say how the USSC will rule if the case comes before them, but I would hope that they would not rule the president can do as he pleases, when he pleases, regardless of the seperation of powers or of his own duty to uphold the constitution.

I see the craziest of claims made by the left in the above posts. Republicans took an oath to work with the president? Um, no they didn't. They took the same oath the president too, which is to uphold, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION. Republicans should decide if they are on vacation or in session? Uh, sure, except they don't run the Senate--the DEMOCRATS do. Republicans should just approve any appointee sent up by the president? Well, okay, but when did this become part of our constitution.

You know what worries me most about our future? It's that, as the posts above often show, most Americans have absolutely no real idea of what our constitution says, let alone means. Not that there is one meaning and it's mine, but what the posts above demonstrate is our educational system is a complete failure at teaching us about ourselves. Almost none of the pro-Obama posters put up anything that could even charitably be described as a cogent constitutional argument to support the president. These were, almost universally, Dear Leader diatribes. We are in danger, existential danger, and the threat is right here at home.

There was no vacancy, the position had never been filled and there were issues as to how much power should reside in one person. There was no real agency in place, even though they were filling positions for an agency that had not gotten full approval.

The Federal Reserve is in charge of the funding for this agency, not the government. That is the sticking point along with the question of autocracy vs. democracy. There was a conversation about having the agency controlled by a bi-partisan group, a committee vs. one single director, handpicked by Obama and loyal to him.

Rich: Excellent post, unfortunately, most people don't understand the issues at hand. They work from emotion rather than logic and the facts only seem to confuse them.

Hi Susie,

I understand and respect your view that you think we should not have waged war, either against a nation which gave safe haven to terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, or against a nation which had lost a war it began and sued for peace by agreeing to cease fire provisions it never fulfilled. But neither war was illegal. I don't know where this fantasy that the wars were "off-budget" comes from either.

The costs for both wars were paid for with (unfortunately) borrowing, but both clearly were budgeted for, just not in the Omnibus Budget. I see many liberals, perhaps just like you, that want to believe the costs were hidden and the reason Mr. Obama's yearly deficit skyrocked by comparison is because he finally put the costs into the budget. This is an obvious untruth, particularly since the US government has been operating without a budget for, what is it now, about 3 years?

Uh, Rich, 53 voted to stop the filibuster on the HOLD put on by a Repubulican. 53, that's a majority, so there Cordray would owuold have been confirmed if not for the HOLD and the FILIBUSTER.

It's the New Year break. Reid gladly would have gone to recess, but Republicans in the HOUSE wouldn't allow it. I'm not sure how that works, but it WASN'T the Democrats that wouldn't confirm the guy, or put the Senate in Recess.

David Walker the United States was organized into a giant "Community" over 234 years ago.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It already is a Community and always will be. You claim that the President is trying to organize a community and all he has done is made it more divided than ever.

Obama claimed who would work across party lines, Change the Way Washington works, Change the Status Quo, end the partisonship and work with Democrats and Republicans alike, etc.

Wheres the Change?

This is just more evidence of Obama's failure and instability to lead.

The CFPB was created when HE signed it into law July 21st 2010 and he couldn't get the position filled in a Year and a Half?

How many times did Congress "recess" in the last year and a half and he couldn't have made his "Recess" appointment during one of those?

I stopped being a Democrat when I started paying attention and started looking past the Headlines and party rhetoric. I have no Love affair for Republicans either because they are just is complacent in this shamble of a two party Political system we have today and the state the country is in.

Rich,

The "off-budget" part is that GWB never included the expenditures in his reports of budget deficits. The whole war effort was considered "emergency funding" and wasn't included in his reporting. Yes, we still spent the money. when Obama took office, he included the costs in his official budgets, which is part of the reason his deficits are larger.

MyGirl,

The whole rationale for an INDEPENDENT commission is to keep politicians hands as far away from it as possible. Therefore the funding comes from the Federal Reserve. the head gets appointed by the President, but that it, and when a Republican is in office, that perseon will be able to appoint his person. But the point is that the organization is for CONSUMER PROTECTION. What difference does it make that congress is removed one step? Do you think Congress is any good at protecting CONSUMERS?

David Noah,

Really? Obama was just LYING when he said he was going to change the way Washington works? No, I think as soon as he got there he was met with a big "F.U." and has been struggling to get anything done the whole time he's been there. He was naive, but he wasn't lying.

HE couldn't get the position filled? Why do you think that is? I can think of 46 reasons.

According to the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 5 : Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

The house did not let the senate adjourn for just this reason. "While the Constitution gives the president the authority to fill executive branch vacancies when the Senate is in recess, a Justice Department opinion in 1993 implied that a recess of more than three days was needed before the president could exercise the power, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. No such appointments have been made during recesses of fewer than 10 days over the last 20 years, the service said in a December report." - LA times. That opinion was made under then President Clinton's D.O.J.

Ask yourselves Why exactly do we need more government? As for those who think that The Republicans are beholden to the financial sector. Look again. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html?pagewanted=all http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/10/guess-which-president-has-raked-in-the-most-wall-street-bucks-in-a-generation/

Your dear leader is truly beholden to the financials, as are most politicians. Dear leader Obama, as the last article states, has raised more from the financials than anyone in a generation. Occupy that B I T C H E Z.

Both parties are corrupt and leading us to complete government control of our lives. Do we need more government. The answer is H E L L no!

“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Do you think that consumers are better protected by a man, a staunch Obama supporter, inside of an agency funded by essentially, a bank, with complete control and decision making powers? Do we really need such an agency on top of all the other agencies who are supposed to protect consumers? Once again the powers that be create YET ANOTHER agency to do the job for which other agencies were created to do. If anyone ever read Catch 22, they will recognise a perfect parallel in this continuing spiral, agency after agency, all created to do exactly the same thing. Talk about redundancy.

Note as well, if the Republicans gain the presidency, then a republican president can appoint someone to follow his agendas. You like that idea?

My goodness you neocons are an odd lot. @Steve1266763: 1) It's the neocons who are whining, Democrats are rejoicing 2) The CFPB was created by act of Congress, not the President 3) It has been needed in the past, to protect people from predatory and usurious lending practices which the neocons want to perpetuate 4) the position isn't being "suddenly" filled--the neocons have been blocking a nominee for a year and a half (even though this one had 53 confirmation votes in the Senate) 5) His qualifications for the job were not being questioned, but the neocons (or, more accurately, lobbying financial groups which have been paying them) don't want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to have any power.

@Rich281385: Your speculative reasoning that the neocons work with Obama on nominee confirmations "better than Democrats worked with Bush43" is worthless. Do you have any numbers to back that up? No, and I don't think you're going to find any. This Senate had 53 votes to confirm this nominee, but the neocons again required 60 votes due to threatened filibuster (they hold the record on this obstructionist tactic-which they have been using to block any appointment to head the CFPB for a year and a half!). The Senate was adjourned as far as conducting business was concerned, and the neocons can challenge the constitutionality of this appointment if they wish (PLEASE do!). Until then, the appointment stands based upon constitutional authority given to the President. I see a threat posed by our governing bodies too, but I perceive the threat from the neocons to be the greater by far. Spurious comments by the right, above, far outnumber any such comments from the left imo.

Republican Senate leader, Mitch O'Connell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” That says it all. It explains the gridlock. It explains a Congress with the lowest approval rating ever. It explains the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. It explains the most damaging era of partisan politics in American history.

I have diligently voted for 42 years to fulfill my civic duty as an American citizen. I have encouraged all of of my sometimes complacent friends and family to do the same with no regards to how they would vote. Sometimes my preferred candidate for various office would win and sometimes he or she would lose.

I supported Bush 41 over Ronald Reagan. I then supported President Carter over Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan became my next President. The assassination attempt on President Reagan broke my heart. Not because I supported his ideology or political beliefs, but because he had been chosen by the majority of the American electorate as our 40th President. How could a lone assassin subvert the will of such a mighty nation? I prayed for his full recovery and return to office as fervently as his most avid supporters.

That tragedy reminded me of a long ago event during my youth. The John F. Kennedy assassination. I will never forget the mournful days that followed when I was only 12 years old. I will also never forget the few cold-hearted adults that viewed the assassination as a good thing because they disagreed with the policies of JFK. I vowed at that moment to never be like those fools. They were cowards that would never support or respect the electorate that lawfully elected our 35th President. They were never patriots, but traitors to the American cause.

That line of reasoning paints Mitch O'Connell, all of his supporters and Congressional followers in the same light. They disrespect their country and the American people with such ludicrous statements. They violate the very oaths that allowed them to take office.

I can live with a Republican running the Consumer Finincial Protection Bureau, sure. How much can the leader undo consumer protections? He and his President would get strung up for reversing protections the people like. (not literally strung up, guys, just a figure of speech).

I'd like to see some protections Republicans are against exactly. Clearly showing what your interest rate is going to be on a loan? Forcing credit card companies to apply payments to the highest rate first? What?

Ronnie Reagan used the recess appointment more than any President I can remember. And ofcourse the right adored Ronnie. Great post Commensense101.

SmBusOwner,

Are you for real? It doesn't matter that a majority of 53 wanted to bring the appointment up for a confirmation vote. Senate rules say it takes 60 to end debate. I don't like it, but BOTH parties have often used it. And we know how much the two wars cost because there were appropriations for BOTH, each adding to the deficit. We even know how much the debt increased under Bush which, as it turns out, was less over 8 years than Obama's debt increases over less than half that time. So, please, for the love of pete, don't pretend that all Obama did was put it "on the books" and that is why the deficit is now so much worse.

there is no constitutional question here. The practice is permitted, and the Senate hasn't conducted any business since before Christmas. That makes them in recess. Period. The semantics don't matter one bit. And in this case, the Supremes will not even bother reviewing this, not if they have any credibility at all as "strict constructionists". If Speaker Suntan would get his people back and start working on creating those jobs his cronies promised, he'd have a Lot more credibilty on this issue.

And therein lies the problem, Rich. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about a supermajority. 51 votes should be enough for ANY ordinary circumstance, like a cabinet or commission appointment.

We all know how this will end if its ends up in the Repub controlled Supreme Control, look what they did with the Super Paks, now we have to listen to all those ads which most of them are untruths by special interest groups, can't wait, its called click click click, off!

HI Ben,

As I wrote I do not like how this is done, but it is done both ways. There is nothing here that is any different than has gone on before EXCEPT for this president calling his pick a recess appointment when no recess is underway. IMO the republicans should do what the democrats never will--I doubt republicans ever would either--which would be to commit to no super-majority vote for cloture on constitutionally prescribed votes, unless the constitution itself makes it necessary.

Hey G-dog,

You might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer so let me spell it out for you. The fact the Mr. Obama has had fewer recess appointments than Bush 43 is not evidence that republicans are more difficult to work with than democrats were in the last administration, but that they could actually be more amenable to the president's picks. The point isn't that this is true, the point was that the claim that was made by your allies was stupidly ludicrous and that other more plausible explanations exist. Learn to read.

JD in SD (1.10)

You have got this issue correct! Hooray for you! All the rest of you posters read JD's post. This is not about party politics but rather the separation of powers. The executive branch should fail in this appointment but predicting a court ruling is very chancy. Claims that Scalia , Roberts , Alitio et al are activist judges is not to know what an activist is verses a strict constructionist you folks need to look up the definitions and reflect on those definitions.

It seems to me that when the Senate convenes with no intention of conducting business it is still "in recess".

Hi don,

The law isn't about what it seems to you or me to be. Look, first, to the constitution where the Senate is allowed to make its own rules, where the Senate is prohibited from adjourning for more than three days unless agreed to by the House (and vice versa), and where the president is prohibited from making appointments without Senate consent unless the Senate is in recess, and the vacancy came about during such recess.

The worst of all possible outcomes in a case such as this would be to allow the president to determine for himself when the Senate is in recess. While the appointed position could only be filled until that Congress ends, it would induce presidents to work even less with the Senate than this president has. And this president has been abysmal at working with the Senate.

About the only consistency I see in the posts supporting the president is that none, seemingly, have been written by a person who has read any of the clauses of the constitution that relate to this issue, despite this being an area to respond to, or discuss, an article about the constitutionality of this president's action. There is nothing right about elective ignorance.

Actually, Rich, a worse outcome is for the Senate to decide that it should block nominations merely because they "don't believe in" the agency for which the appointment nomination has been made. If successful these idiots may well decide that they will block a nomination to the EPA because they don't value clean air and water, block a nomination to OSHA because they care too little about worker safety.

The Senate rules are subordinate to the Constitution and If the Supreme Court has to rule on this issue so be it.

Before you go to far with your accusations about the Senate being "abysmal at working with the Senate" you should review the facts. Mitch McConnell went on record more than two years ago saying that his number one goal was to defeat President Obama. He has backed up his promise by leading the Republican opposition to every bill intended to improve job growth by assisting small business. He has led opposition against many bills which Republicans have not only supported, but proposed. Boehner has acted similarly and has backed out of his own agreements when the Republican Tea Party contingent of the House opposed him.

The recess appointments that President Obama made are not without president and if you look back at the past 30 years you will find that Republican Presidents did recess appointments at a much higher annual rate than either Clinton or Obama.

Your post reveals only your blind partisanship and your own "elective ignorance" of the facts.

Hi don,

Thanks for the reply, but please spare me the trope that because Republicans want Obama to be a one-term president that "they started it". Every opposition party wants a first term president to be defeated and sent packing. EVERY. The point that this president has been abysmal at working with the senate isn't made by me, it is just reported by me. While they won't go on record, Senate democrats are thoroughly upset with Mr. Obama. He doesn't invite them in to talk. When issues arise he remains silent. No, the facts on this is clear, and you know better: Mr. Obama does not work well with the Senate. We can argue about why (I think he lacks leadership skills), but the fact it is occuring is really not in dispute.

To your other point...the problem isn't whether presidents use their recess appointment power to circumvent an obstruction within the Senate. If it were a problem I would side with you. No, in this case there was no recess. And the president can't merely claim a recess exists because he wants to over-rule the Senate's decision to not, yet, bring his appointee up for a vote. Mr. Obama can use the recess appointment power all he wants. When the Senate is in recess.

It's your first point that is most worrisome to me though. If republicans oppose a president that is their political right, and voters will have a say. This is a political issue and should be resolved politically. But Mr. Obama made it a constitutional issue, which is far more weighty for the long-term, and so is far more important. You, and people like you above, simply don't care that he has violated the constitution. I can understand and appreciate your anger at republicans for not doing what you think Mr. Obama wants done, but I can't, and won't, agree with you that Mr. Obama can simply wipe away the restrictions placed upon him by the constitution so that he can get his way.

To that end it is you and people like you that worry me most about America's future. How can we survive when a large portion of our people don't know what is in the constitution, let alone know what it means, and are instead more inclined to support THEIR side just because it's their side. Lesser nations have failed for such leanings.

Rich

You correctly note that this is a Constitutional issue, but you state or at least strongly imply that President Obama is clearly in violation of the Constitution. That opinion is very much in doubt and will probably be decided in the Supreme Court. If the Constitution were as clear as we sometimes believe it is fewer of us would have been shocked by the recent US Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to influence elections in the current manner.

Just a clarification. Some Congressional Democrats are upset with President Obama for his continuing efforts to TRY to cooperate with the Republicans, for giving away too much to a group of legislators who have no intention of cooperating with him. It would be hard for you to name any Congressional Dems who believe that President Obama does not cooperate enough with the GOP.

Don,

Bringing in campaign finance law into this discussion is specious at best any reading of that piece of legislative tripe would have yielded an unconstitutional ruling. The problem was a group of cowardly politicians that washed their hands and left the decision up to the courts. Both political parties engaged in can kicking with the campaign finance law. A poorly written law that got it's just end.

bruce

Before you start using words like "specious" which you seem not to really understand perhaps you should learn that "it's" is a contraction for "it is" and clearly used incorrectly in your statement.

don97524, who gives a damn about grammatical errors? You caught it. That means you understood the original intent of the poster. In that respect, I think you were far from alone. Now tell me, how many smiley faces or gold stars do you expect? 4th grade was a long time ago. Most of us have long grown up since then. You are duly noted and may now return to your seat. I'll keep an eye on you at recess because I appreciate that bright shiny apple on my desk. However, your much larger class-mates may not appreciate your brown-nosing.

Give it up Don. We are talking about critical issues to the people of the United States of America. You got lost. "Its" okay. Big Mike will just have to take his frustrations out on the little blond-haired girl that has been taunting him all day with her obvious flirtations. I never liked her or her trashy mother anyway.

Old-Guy

It takes only one A-hole Senator to put a hold on any nominee. At that point it is only that Senator who can release it.

read the rules of the Senate. It is unbelievable anything can get done.

Fat Man,

How about the GOP allows an up or down vote on these appointments.

The right is always screaming about how the founding fathers would have wanted it, and the Senate was originally designed to be a straight majority rules body. The GOP has abused the the filibuster(not an original constitutional rule) like no Senate body before them.

The Pro Forma sessions are another rule invented in the modern era that is now being abused by the GOP!

We all know the SCOTUS is weighted to the extreme right, so it will be interesting to watch them try and finagle around the Pro Forma session BS in a way that makes it legal for the current Senate but not after.

Did you read the article? Jim Webb is a Democrat. He continued the pro forma process.

Did you also read the point about this being a Democratic invention. Both parties have used it to thwart a president of the opposite party.

You can't have it both ways. Either both parties can use it or both can't. The Supreme Court will probably decide.

If the 5 - 4 split was a Progressive majority ... you wouldn't be questioning the court's impartiality would you?

Rburn: The President didn't take a stand up until now for respect to the voters who put them into office. Now, with that being said- while the GOP are either on vacation or working - whichever.. they seem to be there but really are not (I need to try that with my boss). Anyway, Obama needs to do the same thing with his Job Bill and his Debt Bill... If he's going to court he should just make it worth his time!! LOL

Genius Wally. We do have country to run. W was pretty wrong headed and out of touch, but the Dems didn't obstruct 100% of the time. I don't even know what you righty really object to. He does half of things you guys want.

Jim B

So what if Webb is a Democrat?

The Senate is in pro-forma because they HAVE TO, not because they want to. For some reason (maybe one of you can explain), the Senate must get the House's approval to go into recess. The House didn't let them, so somebody has to to turn the lights on for 30 seconds once every 3 days.

Do you really think keeping these pro-forma sessions going is the Democrat's idea? they WANT Cordray and got 53 votes. It's a Repubican HOLD that can't be overcome becuase of the 60 vote filibuster rule.

He's got a majority, but everything Obama does must make the supermajority.

Yes, Wayne, do some digging instead of believing everything told to you by your self-selected conservative media. The stats are the stats. Liberals complained about underemployment when GWB's numbers started coming down after the 9/11 recession too. Stats aren't perfect, buy they the people generating them aren't just making it up. They're following rules made up long, long ago. They aren't there just to benefit Obama (or Bush for that matter).

PS, a barrel of crude peaked at $147 in July 2008. Now it's around $100. Unemployment was 8.5% in Feb 2009. Now it's 8.6%. IF you've got a job, it's not as bad as it was. You just like to blame THIS guy because you have different politics. Be honest.

OFG--are you high as well as fat? Ried doesn't "let" Obama's agenda get blocked by any Republican? that doesn't even make sense ....and I guess I shouldn't even respond to such nonsense, except I've already typed it out, so here you go!

LOL Obama was all for this when it came to blocking Bush. He even said that it was a important check to the presidents power.Typical of Obama to be a hypocrite. Also Didn't he just put this nomination out 2 days before congress was suppose to go into recess?

Wayne, you wouldn't recognize a socialist if one bit you on the arse. Most progressives WISH President Obama was a socialist, instead of a borderline corporatist. My biggest problem with our president is that he's far too willing to try and compromise with bull-headed obstructionist Republicans who would find fault with him if he farted out the cure for cancer AND the solution to faster-than-light travel in one shot. Unless my suspicion is correct and "socialist" is the new code word for "n*gger" - then it all makes sense.

Wait a tick, THIS ring's up constitutional questions when Libya didn't? I suppose it doesn't matter now. We handed Libya over to Al-Queda. it's in Allah's hands now.

pjam09 - it's the republican party that are the dictators. While the Dems may have a slight majority in Congress, it is not enough to get anything accomplished under the rules. The Republicans have a majority in the House and will stop at nothing to do nothing for us. They shouldn't get paid, benefits, health insurance or anything else that we don't get -- they are NOT Demi-gods - they are public servants who work for us; but, don't!

Hey SmBusOwner,

The reason the Senate must get permission from the House, and the House from the Senate, if either is to adjourn for more than three days is because the CONSTITUTION, yes, that would be the document you know little about, obviously, says they must. The democrats run, that is administer, the Senate. It was their choice to adjourn rather than recess. Harry Reid made the choice. And Mr. Obama then violated the plain meaning of the Constitution. Your hero. At work. Again. Geesus why do people who know NOTHING continue to post their drivel?

Republican Senate leader, Mitch O'Connell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” That says it all. It explains the gridlock. It explains a Congress with the lowest approval rating ever. It explains the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. It explains the most damaging era of partisan politics in American history.

I have diligently voted for 42 years to fulfill my civic duty as an American citizen. I have encouraged all of of my sometimes complacent friends and family to do the same with no regards to how they would vote. Sometimes my preferred candidate for various office would win and sometimes he or she would lose.

I supported Bush 41 over Ronald Reagan. I then supported President Carter over Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan became my next President. The assassination attempt on President Reagan broke my heart. Not because I supported his ideology or political beliefs, but because he had been chosen by the majority of the American electorate as our 40th President. How could a lone assassin subvert the will of such a mighty nation? I prayed for his full recovery and return to office as fervently as his most avid supporters.

That tragedy reminded me of a long ago event during my youth. The John F. Kennedy assassination. I will never forget the mournful days that followed when I was only 12 years old. I will also never forget the few cold-hearted adults that viewed the assassination as a good thing because they disagreed with the policies of JFK. I vowed at that moment to never be like those fools. They were cowards that would never support or respect the electorate that lawfully elected our 35th President. They were never patriots, but traitors to the American cause.

That line of reasoning paints Mitch O'Connell, all of his supporters and Congressional followers in the same light. They disrespect their country and the American people with such ludicrous statements. They violate the very oaths that allowed them to take office.

small biz owner its mostly the educated idiots that live in the northeast that think the rest of us in the country should believe what ever the liberal media tells us like were just brainless zombies, , you people in the democratic party stick so close together no matter what , that is because all of you have to share one brain.

Why do these Republicans insist that a different set of rules must apply for this one president -- preventing him from accomplishing anything at all on behalf of our nation and in the interest of average Americans (such as consumer protection) even when the members of Congress are on one of their several annual extended vacations -- than the rules which have previously applied for all other presidents since George Washington?

Are these Republicans unable to remember president George W. Bush's recess appointment of the very controversial John Bolton as US Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN Ambassador)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

Are these Republicans unable to remember the other 170 recess appointments made by president George W. Bush; or the 139 recess appointments made by president Bill Clinton.

Are these Republicans unaware of the recess appointment by president George H.W. Bush of Lawrence Eagleburger to be Secretary of State; or the three recess appointments of Justices of the US Supreme Court made by president Dwight D. Eisenhower (Justice William Brennan, Justice Potter Stewart, and Chief Justice Earl Warren).

Is it possible that these Republicans are actually unaware that Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifically authorizes the president of the United States to make recess appointments, and that almost every president since George Washington named John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by recess appointment, has used that express Constitutional authority?

No, I don't think it's possible that these Republicans are actually so unaware of recent US History, nor ignorant of this much-used provision of our Constitution, granted to all of our presidents. Rather, this is pure and simple, business-as-usual, high-pitched, over-the-top partisan rhetoric and hyperbole.

What these Republicans actually believe possible is that the American people don't know what they are really up to, and what this is really all about, and will once again be fooled by their rhetoric. And, sadly, they are probably correct.

And of course, our supreme court was totally unbiased in making it legal for corporations to buy elections. Expect a really convoluted opinion that leaves the door open for future Republican presidents but hammers Obama.

Note - Bush respected the Senate's pro forma session...Obama did NOT. Bush's recess appointments were made during a true recess. The Democrat controlled senate came up with the pro forma session to obstruct Bush's ability to make such appointments. For the Dems to praise this action now is hypocritical. Just go back and read quotes of what Reid said at the time. Also, go back and read what Sen Obama said about recess appointments.

The reason the Repubs were blocking appointment of Cordray is that they do not believe that one person should have the power to make decisions that effect all of us. They wanted the administration to have the agency run by a Board, much like the SEC and the Fed. This new agency is now run by a single political appointee. REgulations instituted by this person are bound to be politically motivated. Also, two of the three appointees to the NLRB were only presented to the Senate TWO DAYS before they adjourned in December. This leads me to believe that Obama was setting the stage for a political - election year move.

Why is it that one side is considered obstructionist if they do not believe that the policies, etc. pushed by the other side are in the best interest of the country. They are there to speak for their constituencies. If they do not do so, they will not be re-elected.

Yup, except substitute democrat for republican and the story remains the same. Apparently you don't understand that there really is only one party, the party of 'me.'

Oh, and Robert, those appointments were made to fill pre-existing vacancies, not to fill a position for which there was no actual ruling made about the question of whether or not one person, rather than a committee, should actually be in charge of said organization. Obama essentially made the decision rather than allowing for due process. Interesting that he appointed a loyal supporter of Obamacare and Obama himself. Then there is the little issue of Obama's spitting on the Constitution by signing NDAA into law. You probably aren't aware of that little tidbit, the liberal media was rather low-key in reporting the facts on that as well.

freedom: an excellent post.

A Republican was involved in a serious automobile accident. He lie on death's door awaiting a brain transplant. His friends immediately rush to his side. Their first concern was the cost to save his life.

The surgeon's first question was," Is he a Republican or a Democrat?" His friends proudly shouted in unison, " He is a Republican!". The surgeon frowned and said, " Well, I'm sorry to tell you this is going to be very expensive".

Boner and O'Connell immediately ask why. The surgeon explains that Republican brains are going for $500,000 a pound while Democratic brains are only $100,000 a pound. The Republicans are at first proud of this fact and then ask for a substantial discount.

The doctor sadly shakes his head and says"No. Do you realize how many Republicans have to die to harvest a pound of brains?"

Robert in Oregon

Are these Liberals unable to remember when Hairy Reed began holding “pro-forma” sessions in 2007 to block Bush nominees?

Obviously.

Here you go Libbies, let me remind you of the actual quote by uncle Hairy that he gave on the Senate floor in 2008:

"I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made," (emphasis mine)

But Wednesday, Reid said he supported Obama's decision, "I support President Obama's decision," he said in a statement.

Are these Liberals unable to remember when they are so irresponsibly criminal, corrupt and hypocritical?

Obviously not.

Average Number of Recess Appointments Per Year, by Administration:

Barack Obama = 9
George W. Bush = 22.5
Bill Clinton = 17.5
George H.W. Bush = 19
Ronald Reagan = 30.5

Well, so much for the Republican rhetoric about how President Obama has "arrogantly overstepped his bounds" in an "unprecedented power grab." All spin, all the time.

President Obama has stated he "won't wait around for Congress to get middle-class families and working Americans back on their feet." That he'll "work with Congress when he can, but if they refuse to act -- he will." The Republicans in Congress once again refused to act, so the president did.

This isn't about the qualifications of the president's appointee, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. Mr. Cordray has received broad bipartisan support from thousands of elected officials across the country, and he has a clear majority of the Senate behind him and ready to approve his nomination.

This is about a minority Senate Republican filibuster, blocking a confirmation vote on any nominee, period -- simply because those Republicans do not want this Consumer Financial Protection Agency to exist at all.

That is obstruction, pure and simple. Obstruction bought and paid for with campaign contributions and PAC monies from the financial institutions, credit card companies, payday loan companies, mortgage companies, student loan companies, home equity loan companies; those businesses which this agency is intended to force to behave and act responsibly on behalf of consumers.

Given the statements by Senate minority leader Senator Mitch McConnell, that he will "not allow any nominee" to receive a confirmation vote, President Obama has acted just as the 53%, 9-1/2 Million vote majority of American voters expected him to act when he was elected to the office of President of the United States of America.

Yeh baby, more GOP/TP obstructionism! First it was the government shut down over the Bush tax cuts, then the debt ceiling debacle, and only yesterday blocking the payroll tax cut with the zillionth filibuster.

The Teapublicans show their true colors yet again -- They don't like the law of the land passed with a super majority, otherwise known as consumer protection. So they resort to their usual machinations using parliamentary procedure to try and block a non-controversial appointment. Yeh, let's have another great big fight that will expose the Teapublicans for the rat b@stards that they are. Woohoo!

And while were at it, watch the Teapublicans try to blame the president for our economic woes. All the while trying to block the stimulus, then lying about the stimulus that the CBO proved did work, then trying to block financial reform, and then trying to block the Jobs Bill... The Teapublicans are very good at blame but not so much in giving credit (bin Laden). But the voters know the economy started improving after President Obama's election, and know he has been working hard for working Americans despite Teapublican obstructionism.

This is just another reminder to throw the Teapublicans out -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

To those uneducated who keep carping that this was done by a Democrat (JIm Webb) as if the Democrats wanted this. Let me explain the Congressional rules:

Because the House (at the behest of Republican Senators) is currently not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, the Senate has been going through a repeated ritual of convening in "pro forma" session every third day, but without any capacity to do legislative business.

THe rules of Congress state that neither the Senate or the House can go into recess without the consent of the other. So Webb was required to do this. It was not a choice he had to make. THe House Republicans forced it. It is a sham whenever anyone does it. You did not work a day just because you walked into work ad said "Hello, Goodbye" and left.

SmBusowner: what's your point about the cost of oil? The price of gas at the pump is still as high as it was when it was at 145 a barrel. Obummer needs to be a one term president he has screwed us around long enough. All of you obummer lovers need to stop blindly following the Pipper. To clear up one thing no I am not a racist, I dont like his white half either. You do remember that he is half white right? The country has never been so devided, and all him and his crooks can do is fan the flames of "class" hate and envy. Communist, Socialist it doesnt matter what you call him let just call him finished in 2012.

Let me clear up one more thing too No I am NOT a republican either. I think the entire system is broken. Every last one of them liars need to be fired, and we need some average joes up there. We need to get back to the way it was when a person was elected to serve they served then went home. Just like our Founding Fathers.

I am NOT a republican either.

^ No intelligent person would admit to being a Republican so I don't blame you for denying.

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the blatant disrespect for OUR president. Whether you voted for him or not, he's still OUR president. Having said that, here my issues for those who think the President overstepped his authority:

Rules are are created for a reason when it comes to the government. I PRAY that everyone on here who post a comment understands WHY we have a 3 tier government system in place. These rules, just like any other set of rules we live by (i.e. bible, customs, traditions, etc..) are open to interpretation. This is why we have a judicial system to "determine" what is legal or not. If you look at the last two president's recess appointments, they have appointed people to positions in the exact same pretenses, both republican and democrat. They were not disputed before so why are they being disputed now?

I can understand why the need to have a person appointed to such an important job as this report or have to answer to a board BUT here lies the problem on both fronts, doing so will greatly hinder him from doing his job in that those that are appointed to the board will no doubtly be tainted with "special interest" money with agendas to circumvent his authority and without any one to oversee him, he could succumb to some "special interest" or lobbyist. What is being forgotten is that he will ultimately (just like Mr. Holden) answer to the President, rather it Obama or someone else. He will NOT have the authority to run amuck and do what he wants as everyone thinks.

For those who believe that the Democrats engineered this "obstructionist" attitude need only look back to 1996-1997 when the beloved Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house. This is where obstructionism truly begin. (can anyone say government shutdown?) Yes, yes, I know it's hard for some to think back that far but those of us that CAN, remember the backlash and issues that arise and can and will disagree that this did not start in 2006. Yes Newt engineered and carried it out and paid a hefty price for it which is why he will not be the GOP nominee.

FINALLY, Those who believe that President Obama is a socialist and a divider, let me only remind you of the last presiding president GWB, He not only was the biggest socialist and divider in American history (Bush tax cuts, no child left behind, two unconstitutional wars (were started 3 months prior to being approved by congress that were NOT paid for) just to name a few, he stood by and did nothing until he absolutely had to when he was warned by his OWN economic advisers about the impeding housing market AND financial collapse. The final straw for me was as the banks were collapsing and people were losing there houses AND savings, he was on TV at the Olympic games(remember that) and was there for the entire time.(can anyone say waste fraud and abuse of government/taxpayer money).

As for President Obama, while I will AGREE that not ALL of his policies have been productive for the American people(too much "compromise" and not enough standing by your principles), he is doing the best he can with a republican party whose sole purpose is NOT jobs, jobs, jobs(remember that pledge Behoner in 09/10 we're still waiting) BUT to make Obama a one term president. I would say if you REALLY wanted to make him a one term president, let his proposals that they deemed inadequate, pass and when they fail, rip him a new one and validate your point. The only problem is if they succeed, then you have nothing to run on so the only other resource is to obstruct and let the country suffer and hope you put enough lies out there to convince people he has failed and done nothing to help the country grow. The only problem with that is they have given him something to run on and as long as the economy continues it's snail like pace towards improvement, it only benefits him in the long run.

"It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward," said House Speaker John Boehner.

Pot - meet Kettle! This is all the Republicans have done for 4 years. Remember McConnell's promise to do whatever it takes to make Obama a one term President.

Not only is it legal, there's PLENTY of precedent, including the last Republican president. The Republicans are obnoxious children who object to each and every action Obama takes, whether it involve the government, or his personal life.

They accomplish nothing and they block everything. The biggest appointment Obama had made, the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau, an entity that was already legally created, because the Republicans had claimed they would block any appointment he tried to make anyway. They've even said they like the guy Obama picked, but blocked him anyway. Because they're obnoxious, petty, immature, spoiled little children.

Not only should each and every Republican member of Congress consider themselves and embarrassment to democracy, so should anyone who voted for these morons to do so.

The Democrats are bad at governing on accident. The Republicans are evil and horrible on purpose.

Both sides work hard to make the opposition a one term President. McConnell just said it out loud. The bastards running Congress have more time on a campaign trail than they do preforming the job they were elected to do. Both sides are guilty of obstruction, both sides are hypocritical. Funny how the only time any one sees this is when they are on the opposite end of the boot.

Nah, that's not true, Rick. Empirically. Look at the number of filibusters/threats of filibuster we've seen with this Congress, and you've got the data to back it up. The current crop of Republicans are the least cooperative in history. Nothing can be moved forward without a super majority. And when the Democrats HAD the super majority, they made the fatal mistake of trying to allow Republicans a seat at the table, and they didn't work together and united. Because that's the way government is supposed to work. You're not supposed to always have complete consensus amongst your party, your delegates should vote on their principles. But the GOP has their entire party whipped into line on virtually every issue. They threaten to put primary candidates against incumbents if they don't get their way. These guys are the actual worst.

CommonSense, while agreeing with parts of your comments, I must disagree with many others. Does this sound familiar? It is the type of activity that is going on in Washington D.C. as they waste more taxpayer dollars

Both parties are spouting, and protecting their ideologies, while they waste taxpayer money. The more time they spend on electioneering, instead of what they were hired to do, the less gets accomplished.

They ALL are the most expensive part time workers in the world, with the best benefits package of any full time worker in the world.

Until we, the people that hired them, are given the respect and honesty due us, nothing will change.

Of course, they do little things, but too often, those little things have huge repurcussions to us. Until this changes, we, as a nation, are heading down a long, slippery slope into an ignominious spot in world history.

Of course you should choose democrat brain at $100,000 a pound- it's a better buy and it's never been used so you can train it any way you want. Just fill in the port where it plugs in to MSNBC to get it's opinions.

Let me see the Democrats control the Senate and did not go into recess and the President made a recess appointment? Can anyone see what is wrong with this situation?

Wally-1853299 how about the American people elected him to office to try to turn around what Bush did to this country. And just because you feel that way does not mean everyone feels that way. Apparently by what the polls say 80% of the people think the Republicans in Congress are the ones that are wrong headed and out of touch with realitty.

Thel4ugh!ngm@n

Why didn't anyone bring these crooks to justice when Obama SIGNED the bloody NDAA?

Article 14, 5th amendment.

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

And let's ignore the fact that it applies to american citizens. Since when do we have ANY RIGHT to detain ANYONE Indefinitley WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR TRIAL?

just slipped everyone's minds eh?

Hell with the Patriot Act we had a chance, I remember standing in line to sign petition after petition to make it obsolete, I never even heard of the NDAA until AFTER it was passed!

Freedom Rings Loud, you said:

Now Obama in his Constitutional scholar hypocrisy ignores the exact restriction used by Hairy Reed in 2007 and 2008 to prevent George Bush from using recess appointments. In typical honest Conservative fashion Bush abided by the ruling

I guess you missed the part where Bush made 99 recess appointments, compared to Obama's 32 recess appointments.

So it seems that in Typical Conservative Fashion, you have ignored the facts that do not suit your case.

How exactly is Bush's 99 recess appointments any different from Obama's 32?

Oh, I forgot, Bush was a Republican, and that makes everything he did completely correct, regardless of how wrong, horrific, or Unconstitutional it was, (Patriot Act? just call it what it was, Gestapo Police State Act), and Obama is a Democrat, which makes everything he does completely wrong, If he says America is spelled A-M-E-R-I-C-A, the GOP will instantly say that he is wrong, and insist that it is spelled A-M-A-R-I-C-A, just so they can say the Democrat is wrong.

And you cant even see that this partisan idiocy IS the ROOT of 90% of this country's problems.

Hi AfghanWarVet,

The dispute isn't over whether a president can, or can't, use his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. The president, from whichever party, definately CAN. The debate is over this particular appointment which this president calls a recess appointment, but which was made while the senate was not in recess. I hope you can discern the difference.

Hey Rich I dont think they can discern the difference between night and day or hot and cold.

Nope... can't see any difference, the way you are trying to slice this piece of bread would be the difference between a whisker.... and a whisper or the pubs (pubic hairs) on a gnats butt.

All of the poor lemmings on here. Oh and President Bush hasnt been president for 3 years, and the Nation is worse now then it was. Unemployment is through the roof, prices for good through the roof, foreclosures through the roof, National debt through the roof, number of people on government assistance through the roof. Hell we have thousands of people live in "TENT CITIES". PEOPLE WAKE UP..... Pull the wool from over your eyes. There is a plan that is being followed by obama and the rest to destroy this country. I believe it is time for all true Americans to take a stand and say we will not go quietly, we will not let our country go without a fight, and we will not lose our freedom.

Commonsense I have a question. You dont see a problem with 1 man holding the power of this newly created agency? You honestly believe that since he "has" to answer to the president it will be enough checks and balances? Do me a favor and think about this: If that is ok why do we have 3 branches in govt? Also why dont we just do away with all the joint task forces and just appoint a single person to each? All of them would then answer straight to the president.... yeah I dont see an issue with that at all(/end sarcasm)

Hi Beoweolf,

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are meaning to say is that the president, absent the consent of the Senate, should be able to seat anyone he wants as an appointee, regardless of the process. If I am right, and I do think this is what you mean, then you favor despotic rule, not that of a constitutional republic. If I am wrong, could you please explain how what you want satisfies the constitution?

Ah, but Obama supporters are in favor of autocratic rule so long as it is Obama wielding all powers. I have never seen such blatant adoration and slavish acceptance of one president in all my several years on this planet. It is an interesting phenomenon and decidedly frightening. It is the type of devotion that creates dictators and despots.

If what you are calling despotic rule is by a gang consisting of a majority (voting at the direction, behest of a single person) vserses a supposed despot wielding, constitutionally derived powers which allow him equal or elevated powers ... under narrowly defined guidelines - and he works within those guidelines, where is the difference?

You play the game with the cards as they are dealt. It seems juvenile to complain when you are out played ... based on the defined rules of the game. Especially when "you" have availed yourself of those same rules in the recent past.

Now, suddenly - it illegal?

the queen may be the most powerful piece on a chess board, one on one; however conditions can be manipulated which prevent the use of that power.

There are eight pawns situated on each side of the board. They are the least powerful piece on the chess board, but have the potential to become equal to the most powerful.

Conversely - you need to sure of the trap... played wrong, you expose more than you may think.

Beoweolf, say you were eating dinner at an establishment and you took a bite of the food and found a hair in it. Would you want it to be a wisker or a pube?

The flaw which GOPper's consistently find themselves succumbing to is thinking that our Democratic Republic has hereditary rulers - we don't.

Each election changes the game, resets the dynamics to zero. That is the strength of our constitutionally based government.

Evenutally, what is hidden will be revealed ... as was the failures of the previous administration. Instead of attempting to re-bury the past, you would do well to do better in future.

Beoweolf, say you were eating dinner at an establishment and you took a bite of the food and found a hair in it. Would you want it to be a wisker or a pube?

Personally?

I'd accept that I made a mistake, chose the wrong diner and take steps to never, ever, under any condition provide that restaurant the opportunity to serve me again. Ever...

But, thats just me - others apparently are willing to over look a few hairs ... even find ways to put a number on how outraged they should be... they see being served unsanitary food as merely a numbers game.

Hi Beoweolf,

I think you have misread the issue. It isn't that this is suddenly illegal, it is that this has never, in our nation's entire history, happened before. President Bush (43) had the opportunity when the Senate remained in session but he refused to seat his appointee because it was considered an unconstitutional act.

I also think that you, and other Obama supporters, believe that the president can do as he wants so long as you approve. This is where you and I radically diverge. President Bush, I think, was right, but not because he got his way--he didn't. Bush at least cared to think what the constitution means. Like him or not but he is far better than President Obama in that sense. But I would love for you to prove me wrong, to show that Mr. Obama's appointment occurred during a Senate recess. To show that the vacancy he was filling occurred during a Senate recess.

I get that you don't like republicans. I get that you want Obama to prevail politically. But what I don't get, and I will never accept, is why people of your brand are so quick to dismantle the constitution for political expediency's sake. No external enemy of the USA is as dangerous to our continued survival as the governing concepts you support. I see no way to compromise, no way to correct the issue at hand, so long as those I have to work with are intent on ignoring the laws which govern them.

Apparently 171 appointments, during congressional recess, under the previous administration - is indicative of his "respect" for due process?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf

Any questions?

Think about this... which government official has to be elected by the entire country; not just a state, region or segment of the voting population?

Yes, no, abstain or don't care ... you had a chance to be heard.

So, because Obama was elected, somehow his actions are to be accepted regardless of how bad they are? That is a strawman. Being elected does not mean that someone is capable of doing the job. Being elected means they have the chance, the opportunity to do the job, it does not guarantee that they will do a good job. Campaigning is an entirely different thing from leading.

Reading what you posted, it would seem that the congress was in recess for more than ten days, also, that those appointments, for the most part, had already been vetted and Bush withdrew those appointments deemed unacceptable. Now, Bush was in office for eight years, Obama is in office for less than four years. Nowhere did Bush state that he needed to go around congress in 'order to get the job done.' Bush sought and receive congressional approval before going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama did not. Obama has a history of ignoring congress, or pretending to listen and then doing whatever he was going to do in the first place,

interesting turn of phrase... just because "someone" was elected, somehow "his" actions are to be accepted?

I'm at a loss on how to respond. I think, you have me out-manuvered?

Beoweolf: There is something wrong with the concept of giving a financial regulatory agency, an agency tasked with the challenges this agency is supposed to address, with what amounts to essentially carte blanche legislative powers. The way the agency is structured, there is very little oversight coming from anyone. Then to place all that power into the hands of one man, well, what you have is an autocratic regime. I know from your posts that you're a democrat so I will ask you to answer how you would feel if a 'free market republican' were to be given the post? That is the real crux of the issue. Autocracy vs. democracy.

Hi again Beoweolf,

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, but the issue is NOT whether a president can use his constitutional recess appointment power. No one is arguing that this president, or ANY president, can't. The question is over this president's use of that power when the Senate is NOT in recess. Why you don't get that I don't know. It was in the article. It has been stated repeatedly. I can only conclude that regardless of what this president does you will call it legal.

But, IF you do understand this was undertaken when the Senate was not in recess, then nothing you've written makes sense. See, Bush never did this. Neither did Clinton. And, believe it or not, no one until this president has done this. It is interesting to me just as a cultural observer that no matter how many times you've read (if you in fact read posts) all of these facts that you still labor under the false impression that the Senate was recessed. Perhaps to you it is no big deal that the president has violated his constitutional powers, but it matters a great deal to our nation that there are so many people like you who seem to revel in the idea that we need not follow the law.

Beo although your answer to my question was well worded and understandable it completely side stepped the question. Do you hold a political office by chance?

Rich-281385

Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have no reason to follow the Supreme Law of our land. As I stated in multiple examples in my post above (#2.24), they will corrupt the interpretations both ways in order to achieve their ridiculous goals of social and economic justice for the collective. They see nothing wrong with using the Constitution as a reason NOT to follow its Enumerated Powers or follow its strict Balance of Powers between the 3 branches.

The Liberals know what our Incompetent in Chief did is wrong. They just don't care. Liberalism has poisoned those that accept it and creates dependence, envy, self-pity and ignorance. Had this been Bush or another Republican you would have every Constitutional expert in the country denouncing what was done. As many have pointed out here and on many other blogs I visit, there is nothing wrong with using a recess appointment, as long as the Senate is in recess. It wasn't in recess. Just as I mentioned above, GWB accepted Hairy Reeds appointment of pro-forma sessions during what otherwise would be considered Congress being in recess. Now when the Republicans use the exact same procedure Barrack ignores it and Hairy Reed in his typical blatant hypocrisy approves of it.

If you notice, NONE of the Liberal arguments even mention the pro-forma process. They just keep regurgitating their DNC provided talking-points about how many recess appointments Clinton, Reagan, Bush and whoever else they fancy used. This avoidance is not unintended, it's purposeful. This is a typical Saul Alinsky maneuver. His Rules for Radicals No. 13 is "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it". Here they simply freeze on the recess appointment issue and ignore the real issues is usually the case for Liberals.

You can argue till Armageddon with Liberals and they will just ignore facts and rely on their pabulum. This a pattern that should shock even them but it doesn't. Their indoctrination is complete. Their ability to be self-reliant and independent was stripped from them or their parents and it will take decades to restore. The most common example of how thorough their brainwashing has been is their incessant clinging to the belief that we are a Democracy rather than a Republic. Even more embarrassing is when they try to define either they use a dictionary.

You're fighting a noble battle my friend but at some point the only thing you can be thankful of is that less than 20% of Americans identify as Liberals. It's up to the rest of us real Americans to continue the effort to return our great nation to its intended form of government, a Federal Constitutional Republic.

God Bless America.

... Do you hold a political office by chance? ...

No way in Hell could I put up with the pettiness, arm chair Admirals and cockroachs who "Know better" how to do a job than the person actually doing it.... especially when they call you in to "fix" it after nearly a decade of FUBAR, drenched with molasses.

If I were Obama... By now I'd have sent a few Delta Teams out on domestic sanctions. After wasting a good part of my life in the military - I decided it was not worth the head aches to deal with the public.

There is only so much compromise, waiting to reach consensus possible over one issue, at some point you may find that you are not as forgiving as you possibly could be.

Its like raising kids, you can't tell them what to do - but its always your fault when they screw up.

As Clint Eastwood said it best ... a man has to know his limitations. Most politicians Don't even know they have any.

But, IF you do understand this was undertaken when the Senate was not in recess, then nothing you've written makes sense. See, Bush never did this. Neither did Clinton. And, believe it or not, no one until this president has done this. It is interesting to me just as a cultural observer that no matter how many times you've read (if you in fact read posts) all of these facts that you still labor under the false impression that the Senate was recessed

Sunlight is a Good thing...

You speak of constitutional limitations as if they are a line in the sand...

Question: did you know about Carnivore, The Patriot Act, water boarding, Enhanced interrogation, no bid contracts to prefered contractors etc - before some busy body news media rabble rouser - forced it out in the open?

I'll accept that many are willing to give up a few, insignificant freedoms in the belief that safety is enhanced. My problem with clandestine laws being levied against the public is - how can you know you are doing something wrong if the Law you are breaking is secret?

How do you know that a program will "ruin" the country ... cause us to fall further in debt, if you keep doing what got us in debt in the first place? So far - I have not seen any meaningful legislation coming out of Congress, since January 20, 2009.

Beo- Thank you for your service in the military.

@Frosty - I am interested as to what you disagree with and as for the rest of your points they are spot on. When they are elected to office they are in constant campaign mode and are always doing what it takes to get re-elected vice doing the "people's" business. Until "we" as a people do what is required and vote them ALL out (I would say president included PROVIDED we have someone that will TRULY do what's required to get this country on the right track) and replace them with other people that will do the people's business, I fear congress will continue in the direction it's currently headed.

@TJ - I never said that I was ok with one person running a branch of government, I SAID I UNDERSTAND the reason, big difference AND I stated why(corruption and lobbyist) and TECHNICALLY they DO have to answer to either congress or the president being that they are "nominated" and "confirmed" or in this case appointed. You know this as well has most of americans. Only President Bush tried to appoint a person without anyone to answer too(Department of Homeland Security) and it almost work if the report didn't come out that they were tapping and monitoring american citizens what had nothing to do with terrorism BUT I digress. As for your sarcasm, LOVE IT!!!!

Beoweolf,

I will happily answer your last post if you could make at least one attempt to answer anything I've asked you. Switching the subject in the hopes of confusing/conflating issues is no help. And pretending that some lines are in fact in the constitution is an outright falsehood. If you can't focus then there is no reason to debate, but if you can, then you should. This action by this president is the topic. Focus. Please don't bring up any other president since no other president has done what this president just did.

By the way what this will mean, since I have come to conclude you aren't smart enough to figure it out on your own, is that any rule made or enforced by this agency will immediately be the subject of litigation. Either he will go too far one way or the other and those he "intends" to help will be dissatisfied, or those he intends to regulate will be. What he does will end up in court, and the president. by his own actions, has made his claim of wanting to protect you (which is laughable on its face anyhow but for other reasons) likely impossible. So much for presidential leadership. What we have here is a case of a despotically minded president looking for an election year issue, which is absolutely not what you portray him and his policies to be.

You bring up what Bush, Clinton - Didn't do... then expect other points of view to be limited, because its inconvenient to what you want to talk about?

A hungry animal will chew on a bone when there is nothing else to eat, but I find itquestionable to sit here chewing on the same bone...when there is no meat to it and you are "supposedly" hungry for truth. There's a gazell, stuck in the mud, going now where - yet you insist on chewing on the same dry, meatless bone and remaining hungry.

As I expected, and was warned about, you are unable to argue the constitutionality of this case. All you can do is pretend that other president's have done what Mr. Obama just did. We are not one America, maybe we never were, but there is no way to work with people who refuse to agree that the words in the constitution are actually the words in it. Imagine that...you aren't even able to agree what words are there, what the law is, or means, yet you want the rest of us to simply accept your Dear Leader's actions. How, again, is this not the construct of someone despotically minded?

Rich-281385

As I read the posts from the Liberals and Progressives here and on other blogs I realize arguing with them is similar to shadow boxing.

After 15 minutes 2 undeniable truths emerge.

1. I’m tired.

2. I always win.

You can see the obvious denial they, such as beoweolf, use to avoid reality. This is a typical affliction of the Liberal Mind. Once you push them beyond their indoctrinated talking points they are helpless and just resort to incoherent blatherings and diversions. They will make pathetic attempts at projection even when it doesn't promote their argument.

Your efforts will be better served by promoting Constitutional Originalism on those who have the mental capacity to think for themselves. A rarity here on the Newsvine. Once in a great while you will find a Liberal who will realize he or she has been misguided and they will at least carry on a rational discussion. Those are the ones you need to concentrate on. At least there your efforts will be appreciated.

Rich:

I see the Senate in de facto recess. They are conducting no business. A minority of them bother to show up every few days to say "we're not really in recess." It's a sham. If they cannot get a quorum together, they are not really in session. If they are not really in session, they are in recess -- no matter how much they insist that they are not. I still say that it is very simple. If they claim not to be in recess, then they can act on his appointment as a nomination. If they are only playing games, claiming to be in session while really in recess, his recess appointment stands.

And that is the attitude we need to take to the streets, and the voting booths! Unfortunately the way this country is set up it's going to take another civil war to get party politics out of the way! I believe we need to write a new constitution based on George Washington's(Only Independent president we've ever had) final address as president. For those of you who haven't read it, it's something Dem, Repub, and teabags should all be able to get behind.

It was a Democrat that banged the gavel in the Senate.

Only for today's session. Both parties have been trading the gavel on this....as part of a regular schedule of rotating gavel responsibilities....whether on recess or actually IN SESSION doing the work they are SUPPOSEDLY BEING PAID TO DO BUT FAIL TO DO EVERY DAY. Both parties are at fault because they think they are saving their own skin in this election year. I hope it backfires on every one of the Senators up for re-election this year, then in 2014 and 2016 until we have gotten rid of every one of them. This "pro forma" was most likely part of the hidden compromise on the payroll tax reduction extension deal.

In the meantime, you can all do something about this gridlock....join the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampaignreform.us and help pass the Election/Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits constitutional amendments.

optimist - "Teapublibaggers tried their own brand of skulduggery to keep Congress "in session,""

Has the illiteracy rate among liberals officially reached 100%?

The Republicans tried the DEMOCRATS "brand of skulduggery" imbecile. Good grief, if you couldn't even grasp that fact it is no wonder sell your vote for "free" handouts.

jr-307

To those uneducated who keep carping that this was done by a Democrat (JIm Webb) as if the Democrats wanted this. Let me explain the Congressional rules:

Because the House (at the behest of Republican Senators) is currently not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, the Senate has been going through a repeated ritual of convening in "pro forma" session every third day, but without any capacity to do legislative business.

THe rules of Congress state that neither the Senate or the House can go into recess without the consent of the other. So Webb was required to do this. It was not a choice he had to make. THe House Republicans forced it. It is a sham whenever anyone does it. You did not work a day just because you walked into work ad said "Hello, Goodbye" and left.

jr-307591

... It was a Democrat that banged the gavel in the Senate ...

That sounds like a complaint a coyote would make once he finds out the rabbit he was eyeing for dinner - was a 8th Dan karate expert . It ain't fair, I tell ya' ... he should have warned me before kicking me in the head and stompn' a mud hole in my butt! Rabbits are supposed to play fair - this was unnatural.

... Can't I have a do-over?... I'm gonn'a sue, take this all the way to the supreme court... it just ain't fair.

Did you read the article? Do you have a difficulty with reading comprehension?

Oh, you mean it was a democrat who banged the gavel? Gee I guess they missed that detail, must be from the public school system.

Msmith - "The GOP should give it a rest!"

Unlike Democrats they actually care about Americans, and it is Americans who gave them their jobs in November 2010.... a fact that Obama has never appreciated since 2008.

Nobody should rest until Obama is out of office.

pjam - "Unlike Democrats they actually care about Americans, and it is Americans who gave them their jobs in November 2010.... a fact that Obama has never appreciated since 2008"

Well WE gave Obama the Presidency in 2008, something that Repuglican'ts have never appreciated since 2008.

Elections have consequences, and Obama WON!

@Jim B-3885087

I think YOU need to actually read the article. Then, you need to take an American government class so you actually know what your talking about.

Elections have consequences and Obama WON!

Yup, and if you parse that statement in light of Obama's usurpation of constitutional powers, the consequences of his having won the election are rather dire.

GOPpers

... didn't respect your vote in 2008 - what has changed? Did they find a way to work toward the good of the Nation? Or, like petulant children, did they fall into a separate clic and waste the last 3 years playing "keep away", while the rest of our elected team - not them, tried to soldier on; carrying the whole weight?

Now they are asking for your vote in 2012.

Hyperbole much? Who had the majority? Who were kept out of closed door meetings? The elections of 2010 were remarkable. Never in history had so many republicans been elected in one election cycle. If you keep wanting to discuss elections and imply that we must trust Obama because he won the 08 elections then perhaps you should also be accepting of the Republican's winnings in 2010.

As to your 'elected team soldiering on' please explain how that brave team managed to avoid passing a balanced budget amendment, and managed to avoid doing so for almost three years? Guess the budget wasn't too important to that brave team. Then, the three years that you are so fond of remarking on, two of those years were spent in creating Obamacare and borrowing lots of money to support lots of 'feel good' legislations that essentially did what? Stimulus? Seems your team was real good at spending, not so good with responsibility.

You know why some folks are hell bent about a rigid set of rules...right?

By laying down rules that they expect OTHERS to follow they can gain an advantage by breaking them.

Athiests are per capita more than 10 times less likely to be in prison than religious superstition believers.

Well, you're supporting an even worse bozo.

nice come back wally.

No kidding!! If I were a Republican that believed in the party of Lincoln/Roosevelt, I would be ashamed of what these jokers represent and profess. Bring back the GOP as it was envisioned by those great presidents OR face your final battle because WE the People do NOT want your form of government...We want our Democracy back!! It's pitiful who they put up for nominations - 2nd class citizens at best. Can't compete against an intellectual, a leader of men, lol.

I will proudly support Ron Paul, and never question my patriotism.

Wow Janis, that was brilliant! Oh, except we have never had a democracy. It's called a republic, and it is very different from that which you claim we've always had. Find a civics book and read. Start with something with lots of illustrations if you need to.

There's a lot about Ron Paul I do like; but, he is too extreme and the republican party will Never nominate him due to that. The republicans have me a bit confused on the issue of WAR. They are War mongers as it puts money into the contractors that work over there which comes back to them anyways and yet Paul doesn't want ANY war - isolationism didn't work during WWII and won't work now ---so, which is it you all want? War or No War No matter which, you will critize Obama for reducing the military...you will critize him for living..you will critize him for fighting for the 99% - which some of you must not be, I guess.

We want our Democracy BACK, Rich281385 and that is a government FOR the People, By the People!!! Corporations are NOT people and the Bill of Rights did NOT include Corporations as People...We are the People. Capitalism and Corporations who are now People are erroding our Bill of Rights -- we will fight to stop the Republican assault on our Democracy.

independent of your brain , from the religious right , I hope you have fire insurance , because drop and roll wont work in hell.

Well, at least Ron Paul is consistent and uses his brain. He doesn't seem buyable and his ideas are spot on via the Federal Reserve. Note that the media has never shown the same high degree of scrutiny on Obama. He sort of appeared out of nowhere, and voila, a President is born. Anyone questioning his veracity is shot down or labeled racist and no one seems real concerned at how he has hidden a large portion of his background, hired lawyers to do so. That, BTW is documented.

Wayne - "independent of your brain , from the religious right , I hope you have fire insurance , because drop and roll wont work in hell"

Another reason why religion has no business in Politics. Maybe you should go back to reading your bible. Matt 7:2 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged" That verse alone should make Christians less judgmental, but alas that verse isn't in their bible studies.

Mygirl - "he has hidden a large portion of his background, hired lawyers to do so. That, BTW is documented."

By whom, Fox News? If you are referring to the $2 million in lawyers fees that his campaign amassed during 2008. Maybe you should look into what McCain's campaign spent on Lawyers. I think it was near $1.3 million. What did he have to hide? NOTHING, these costs are associated with ANY campaign. Check the most recent presidential contests, Bush v Kerry; Bush v Gore; You will see equivalent lawyers costs. Another Right wing conspiracy debunked. NEXT!

Independent888

The bigger question is why do they all want to be like R. Reagan. He raised taxes on us 12 times including the largest tax increase in the history of the US. He fired all the Air Traffic Control people because they wanted to negotiate better work hours because some were falling asleep on the job due to long hours. R R also gave us Iran Contra, had the CIA dealing drugs (in south America) and WMD (to Iraq) against US law.

Fast and Furious. Solyndra. Immelt. Libya (no congressional approval on that one) MF. Corzine. As to the Air Traffic controllers, had they walked off the job, they would have shut down air travel. Then let us look at other presidents, Carter, Clinton, Nixon et al. none of whom managed to escape unscathed from some scandal.

Sorry, but W. made 171 recess appointments.

Don't like recess appointments? Did you not like the 171 Bush made?

David Noah, you are incorrect.

"In modern times, presidents of both parties have used the power to make appointments during much shorter congressional recesses, like during the summer and around holidays. President Bill Clinton made 95 recess appointments to full-time government positions. President George W. Bush used the power 99 times. The number for Obama so far is 32."

So says the article, President Bush used that power 99 times.

David Noah... Article one, section 5 of the Constitution says "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide." The republicans who control the house...are making sure we never go to recess by using this clause. They're the ones gaming the system...by never allowing the session to end Obama can't make recess appointments. Democrat Jim Webb closed session...GOP said "What?" and started whining. Under article two the president does have power to make recess appointments...W did it 99 times. Article two, section two, paragraph three clearly gives the president the power to make appointments during a recess of the Senate.

Hi Jack Frost,

You might want to rethink your post. Republicans don't control the adminstration of the senate. Harry Reid as leader has that duty. His caucus (they are all democrats but for Bernie Sanders, he's a socialist) supported the adjournment rather than a recess. There are reasons for this, some of which are just for ease. To recess you need the approval of the other House. But your idea that republicans somehow caused Reid and Webb and the other democrats in the majority to do this in the senate is, how to put it nicely...stupid.

BTW, I think David is right--Bush didn't make this kind of appointment. He did make recess appointments, and an opportunity like this--where the senate was in pro-forma session--did arise, but Bush refused to do what Obama has done. David's explanation was confusing, but I think that is what he meant.

Jimmy sd your not smart enough to be stupid , you have to have a goverment to do your thinking for you, and do they come to your home and tell you when to eat and tuck you in bed, like they say never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups , ie. like the ones that voted for Mr O in 2008, Mr O needs to go, ........ away , far , far , away........... to screw up a diffrent galaxy.

To David's defense (and Rich you are correct) he was talking about only making recess appointments while congress in "recess". AGAIN, I have to agree with the rheotric that if you are "forced" to come into work every three days to bang the gavel, make a 5 second statement, then go home, how are you in session? Again this is all is open to interpretation which is why the Obama did what he did(not to defend his actions, just my opinion). Unfortunately, former president's Clinton and both Bushes DID make recess appointments while congress were in this "Pro Forma" session so David I do disagree with you on that point.

Rich Under the Constitution, Article one, section 5, paragraph 4 it says that Congress may not adjourn for more than three days unless it has approval of the other house. IOW, the senate can't adjourn for more than three days unless the house approves it....The GOP controlled house is essentially blocking the senate's ability to recess. This is the reason Senator Jim Webb banged the gavel to open the session, then 30 seconds later closed it. He had to by law, and three days later on the 10th they'll have to do it again. Obama is essentially saying the closing of the senate by Webb is a recess. Is it legal? I think there's going to be some court battles over it for sure. Semantically, is a recess and an adjournment the same thing? I think so. The GOP do not.

@Common Sense 23.... Name ONE appointment made by any president, other than Obama, while the Senate was not in official recess. The pro-forma sessions were devised in 2007 by Harry Reid and the democrats to prevent Bush II from making recess appointments. Bush did not appoint anyone during these pro-forma sessions. Progressives have now proven, beyond any doubt, that they have no ethics or integrity and are dishonest to their socialist, communist, Marxist cores. You people disgust me.

@dmac - John Bolton was one under the Bush administration in 2005 and Roger L. Gregory under President Clinton(there's 2 for you). On your other charge that Harry Reid devised the "pro-forma" sessions I'm sorry to correct you but a Senator by the name of Robert C. Byrd(a republican and active KKK member until he was elected senator for a second term) engineered and implemented the "pro-forma" sessions, Sadly Harry Reid used a republican idea against a republican president. I will add that Bolton resigned a year later after the legality of his appointment.

As for your last statement: Please clarify something for me please, What would you call a person who steals an election with the help of his brother and a PAID election official.(don't mess with this one, I am a retired Navy vet who took leave from my overseas duty station to vote in that election ONLY to find out that my district's votes somehow disappeared(5,324 votes to be exact) and were never counted) then systematically starts a war that wasn't approved by congress until 6 months later on a false premise and causes the greatest divide in social classes? Socialist, Communist, or Marxist?

Because Obama treats the constitution like toilet paper? What a great argument you present. (sarcasm)

pjam09

because your republicans only thing they do is obstruct even it is their own bill, just because Obama or democrats propose it now. Kinda reminds me of Health care Reform bill that was proposed by republicans in 90s to clinton and when democrats proposed during obama, suddently republicans against it. PJam go read constitution before opening your mouth.

pjam09

Bush said:

Stop throwing the constitution in my face. It is just a Goddamned piece of paper

Don't talk to us about respect for the constitution

Frankly: Think you need to provide a documentation or two, just making something up is easy, verifying it is a bit more challenging.

Well I'm not on either side, I'm on the fence, and I think the pro forma session is a joke and a farce. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court it will have little impact on Obama's appointments.

Of course you can, he's not on his knees begging for table scraps from an elitist dictator in exchange for voting against his own nation's future.

Leave it to Democrats to originate another way to reduce the effectiveness of American government.

Times change. When the Dem's did it, it was Brillant! Bush would have gotten away with Much more than he did (i.e. Iraq, Wall St, Banks). They should have been given medals! It's obvious that Obama doesn't favor this action for he has used it less than any other president. He is a very intelligent man. It'll be a "case study" in some school class. Negotitions were futile and only a fool would continue. Strong leadership skills, excellent understanding/knowledge of constitutional law, and his enemies underestimating him. They will no doubt try to save face. All this to stop Obama from implementing help for the middle class and the "new" poor class - US!! The People, who fought for the right to vote, which the Republican majority States are trying to deny us, The People, who worked all our lives only to lose our homes & our jobs, our health insurance, and our investments. They'll call him a "Czar"; but, for those of us who have wanted and waited for help to save our homes, credit, and maybe get a job - the republicans deny us that just for what?? To defeat Obama! I do believe that his actions were effective for US.

Dear God. Obama acts like a despot and you approve. He finds he must ignore congress and do whatever it is that suits his agenda. You like or are you even aware of NDAA? Obama signed it into law New Years. It effectively takes away American citizen's right to counsel, trial by jury and freedom from indeterminate detention, all guarantees under the Constitution.

If Obama is not in office, guess you'll be ok with one man in control of all the financial and consumer regulations, especially if that one man is a republican. Right?

""DUMB AS REPUBLICAN/TEA VAGINA CONTROLLING PARTY MEMBER" Fool! There is no reason you should perceived there is a threat to your little white world of hate, greed, prejudiced, and bigotry, by that black family in the white house. (LOL). Don't hate or take it out on the the Obama's, hate your evil world of cancerous discrimination. Death by God will eventually silence your hate, but only if you don't pass your cancerous discrimination on to your children? Some of you people really hate this 43rd President black man and his family, but how about the other 42 white men????

Did you read the article? Do you have a difficulty with reading comprehension?

jim this is the third time with that same line shut the *&$% up and come back with a better line

It's all he's got.

Thank you annoyedperson and sotajet for saying that to Jim B. His mind is in a perpetual brain fart and he doesn't have anything else to say.

Brought to you by the same party who determined that running and hiding in a different state was actually doing their jobs.

Democrats say that not being present should stop the Wisconsin vote...

Democrats say that not being present but pretending to be present should stop Bush's appointments...

Democrats say that pretending to be present should not stop anything....

Is it any wonder the Unions own these pansies?

And your evidence of that, concerned, is...? Jim B has a valid point, as he has with MOST of the anti-Repub rants in this thread so far. It was a DEMOCRAT that rapped the gavel, the DEMOCRATS are in charge of the senate, not the repubs. So quit blaming them for being obstructionist. The president's own party is sick of his autocratic ways, and now they're finally calling him on it.

jackie - And yet no president in U.S. history decided to unilaterally declare that a 3 day break was a "recess" so he could fill American government with more yes-men.

Catsclaw81

He was required to do so by Senate rules and Congressional rules that state niter body can be in recess without the permission of the other. The house (AND SENATE republicans) is refusing to give that permission forcing th Senate to go into sham sessions every three days.

Webb had no chose but to do this.

THere goes that argument

Frankly -

Your statement has been said 3 times prior. Sadly I do not believe those that make the same statement Catsclaw81 has actually read any of the comments prior to making their own. I honestly believe they find one the have "issues" with and fire away their rebuttal. The real reason (yes this is documented) the house refuses to give the senate permission to recess is simply because they were forced to "relent" on the payroll tax extension and couldn't "force" the senate back from their break. The formal request was already sent and waiting approval(which is usually ALWAYS granted around the holidays) but once the house was backed into a corner, that was the only leverage they had.

As much as I would like to agree with you, I am afraid this one is over a Senate rule that allows them to "stay in session," by having someone in the Chamber to bring them to order and then five miniutes later, adjourn - thus, "technically" they have remained in session and are not in "recess."

I say, fine let them challenge Obama; I'd love to see several "Senate rules," come up before the Courts...such as the filibuster, which in my opinon runs against the original intent of the Constitution.

Of course, the problem is that the Courts may not want to get in the middle of a fight between the Executive and Legislative branches...unlike their willingness to overrule a State Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore.

P.S. Correction: I need to learn to actually read the article before commenting. Technically, apparently, the Obama appointment WAS when the Senate was in recess...if only for three days.

Sorry...I stand corrected...you are right.

I would like to see Obama support the GOP nomination at the GOP convention just to see if the GOP would oppose that as well..lol

How? The clause reads: "The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

If the appointment hadn't been blocked by the threat of filibuster, when the Senate was in session, it would have been made "in session."

But, perhaps, you can find where in the Constitution it says the filibuster may be used to block legislation, effectively requiring a super-majority of 60 for the passage of appointments and law?

I would suggest that the "founding fathers" expected the Legislature to pass legislation by a simple majority, OTHER THAN IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THEY SPECIFIED A LARGER MAJORITY BE REQUIRED (such as impeachment, overriding a veto, treaties, etc.).

He did not. He has the power to adjourn congress (Article 3 Section 2) and make recess appointments (Article 2 Section 2).

Sorry, I made a typo. It is Article 2 Section 3 that gives the President the power to adjourn Congress.

The adjournment power is qualified...to only if the two Houses disagree between themselves on adjournment. In short, a united Congress always trumps a President.

stone6 - "How? The clause reads: "The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.""

Maybe because a 3 day break is not a "recess" and never has been since the country has existed.

Stone6 - Don't bother with Pjam. He's a GOP troll that jumps on their command. He doesn't even care if he gets a treat for it.

So, I suppose anyone rebutting inaccurate statements is now a troll?

richy - "I used to ride the line of repos and demos ... I will never vote for another GOP as long as I live."

Wow, way to not "ride the line". (sarcasm)

"GOP will not budge an inch on anything. How can that be?"

Because Americans elected them not to and they actually listen?

Pjam - Tell me why are you so blindly loyal to the GOP? You make Mitch McConnel look like someone who was high fiving Bill Clinton during his impeachment. Tell me, is the GOP capable of doing ANYTHING wrong in your eyes? Or are you just their self-appointed PR rep?

I'm not trying to criticize you, I just genuinely want to know because you praise literally ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING the GOP says, thinks, or does. Do you even have a mind of your own?

Pjam09-

The overwhelming support of the GOP's in 2010 was their promise of "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS". Once they were in office their strategy changed to forget jobs, "Make Obama a one term president" and repeal Obamacare. No mention of jobs or any other idea to put people back to work. The only idea we have been presented with is to make the Bush era tax cuts permanent, allow tax cuts for the "job creators" who sent the majority of "our" jobs overseas for pure profit and AGAIN believe trickle down economics(which hasn't work in 10 years) will create jobs. Do we really want to go through "this" again? Just asking.

Golly, so the government is in the business of making jobs? Really? How? The point of 'job creation' is not borrowing money to 'stimulate' the economy, when that money runs out, the economy reverts. Artifically stimulating anything, without addressing core issues that created the stagnation is simply throwing money into a deepening hole.

Obamacare is not going to stimulate the economy unless you consider handing over more customers to insurance companies counts as stimulation. The over 1,400 Obamacare waivers should be a good indication of how wonderful it is. Especially when you realize how much money was stripped from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

As to ideas being presented, go check Harry Reid's desk and see how many ideas he has refused to allow on the floor. There are options out there, but it is not in the democrat's political agenda to allow them to see the light of day. Far more important to demogogue and make misleading statements.

Mygirl - I do believe I have to simply my comment so that you can understand it:

First: I did not say that the government was in the business of creating jobs. I SAID that Speaker(then congressman) Behoner made the statement that if they took back the House AND Senate that Jobs would be their main focus to help jump start the economy. This was their whole campaign message which got the republicans the majority of the house and him the speakership. I DO agree that you can't just "throw" money at a problem and expect it will fix itself.

Second: The Health care act(aka Obamacare) was NOT designed to stimulate the economy BUT to offer health care to all americans AND ensure those with pre-existing conditions are able to get affordable health care. and it DID NOT take any money out of medicare. Not sure where you got that information from and would LOVE to see your source.

Third: The only ideas that have been brought forth are the ones that I've mention in my previous comment. These ideas have proven over and over again a failure in the sense of stimulating job growth or creating jobs. The idea to cut or eliminate medicare and social security or cause the elderly to pay more for their on health care(while most only have their medicare and SSN to depend on as primary income) as well as eliminate regulations that are in place to hold businesses and corporations accountable for their negligence(e.g. BP oil spill, coal mine incidents, etc..) AND redo the tax code that will cut taxes even more for the wealthy while having the middle and lower income people to pay more will help create jobs in the private sector, I can understand why Harry Reid will not allow them to see the light of day.

MyGirl.

So. Let's review...

Let's eliminate social security. All the social security empoyees will be without jobs.

Let's eliminate the Post Office. All the Postal employees will be without jobs.

Let's eliminate the Fed....etc...

Let's expand the military. Apparently, those aren't "Government jobs."

ATTENTION all Newsvine posters!

Will somebody PLEASE find me just one conservative who can make a cogent argument?

Just one??

@ shut yer yap:

Will somebody PLEASE find me just one conservative who can make a cogent argument?

lmao....I doubt it. They see only what they want to see. They ignore everything, except what makes their argument look good lol. Logic, truth, understanding, reasoning....conserv's don't seem to know about.

Sorry, republicans and teabaggers. None of your "leaders" have a chance at the presidency.

President Obama has another term to serve.

Try again in 2016.

Or maybe 2020.

wow, things haven't changed here. reading these comments it seems the hate is stronger than ever. How sad. This country is really falling fast, and we have to only blame ourselves.

Happy New Year????

hell yeah @Lucy1 but at least fox and msnbc sell alot of ads while we all yell and scream at each other.

There are good and bad things about both the American system, and Parliamentary systems. You're seeing one of our problems, now. But, how many times have we seen a Parliament fail to produce a government?... sometimes... FOR MONTHS! That is but one flaw in the parliamentary system. I'm sure that you can find more! lol!

The party with the most seats form government but as a minority government which needs support from the smaller ones to get laws passed. Some of the best laws we have is because of minority governments trying to pass laws that please everyone.

Did you read the article?

How many times are you going to cut and paste the same stupid response.

The fact that a Democrat gavelled in the session is not relevant. The Democrats could not avoid the pro forma sessions because the Republicans blocked a unanimous consent for full recess.

Have you not been paying attention? Simple majority doesn't rule in the United States Senate. In the Senate, 60 votes are needed to get anything done.

OK, mjg63. Valid point on that one. BUT, my main point was that you can't cry foul when your opponent uses the tactic YOU invented against you. Many didn't seem to get that part of itl.

Many don't like our form of govt, it's procedures, etc. It is what it is.

Likewise lots of people rail about the Citizens United S.C. ruling. It not only allows corporations to contribute large sums, but also unions.

Again, you can't have it both ways. If corps can't then unions can't and vice versa.

Are unions profit generating corporations? No. One minute you say that corporations are people, then you want to conflate them with unions as well. Do the stockholders in the corporation get a vote as to how much of the corporation's profits can be spent on political "contributions" and activities? Not before the money is spent. After the fact, perhaps, but good luck running down those facts before you can then muster a vote.

Unions are essentially PACs for employees, people, not institutional investors, like corporations..

Holy S**t! Jim B CAN say more than a few words!

Unions have political agendas. They vote as a PAC, however, many union members are not given the option of refusing to allow their dues go into funding PACs. Unions are indeed a voting block, comprised of individuals. Ditto corporations. Remove specific agendas from the argument before condemning one group over another.

What difference is there, in actuality... the real and best thing that should have happened is that no agenda driven group be allowed to influence campaign finances.

Union members have the right to withhold the portion of their dues used for lobbying.

Susie I am a Democrat

Your silly attack on Jim B degrades you....rise above that

"Democrats started this "pro forma" crap... Obama, a constitutional guru, has decided that the maneuver is bogus!"

Shows the integrity of someone who is willing to align themselves with those whose conduct he considers "bogus", doesn't it?

yes, well said.

Obama has my vote, cause the GOP are monsters running amok.

I hated Bush and even more so Obama. Both are nasty crooks who belong in prison for the damage they have and (are) doing to our nation!

GHX--President Obama is trying to repair the damage Bush caused while in office. 2008 Collapse of the economy, Tax Cuts for rich, not funded, Two Wars, not funded, Bailout of Wall Street and Big Banks, ($790 billion) with no accounting of where the money went. Lack of regulations by Big Banks and Wall Street to run amok, causing the meltdown. Mortgage Crisis, (bad papers) fraud by freddie mac to regulate the mortgage Industries. President Obama INHERITED this mess from BUSH. 1/2 of 112 Congress are Millionaires, net worth $2.3 million dollars average. House members average $785,000 net worth per member. Latest figures, total unemployment in this country stands at 30 million people without jobs, or hope of finding one. 6-7 million jobs shipped oversea by Big Corps. Corps est to have over $1.5 trillion in profits sitting in their bank accounts oversea. They are the JOB PRODUCERS, but NO JOBS. TP republicans, where are the JOBS, and your so called JOB Plan. Not one JOB produced by TP republican to date??? WHERE ARE THE JOBS. Note: President Obama has had 22 months of private sector jobs ( 3 million) to date.

Is it my imagination or are the Republicans again doing all they can to break this president and keep our economy in limbo? The congress is dysfunctional. I believe we all can agree on that! Our Republican representatives have lost their way and have made it impossible to proceed forward with actions needed to repair the ills of this country. They fail to find middle ground on anything. If this is what it takes to get things done then so be it.

These are the words of a useful idiot. You cannot violate the Constitution just because you feel that we need to "get things done". The Constitution is based in the ideology that the government who governs least is the government who governs best. It was idiots like you who allowed Hitler to ignore the German Parliament, and look at how well things turned out when they "got things done". The federal government has no legitimate role in regulating or "improving" our economy. They cannot improve our economy, all they can do is put more money in circulation, and give it away to people, but all they do is make all of our money worth less. It is time for you to wake up and realize that people like you pose a greater threat to the US than the any Islamic extremist group.