Discussion:
King Hussein Wipes His Ass On The Constitution. Democrats Giddy.
(too old to reply)
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-07 00:19:26 UTC
Permalink
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html

-Eddie Haskell
Phlip
2012-01-07 00:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Iowa caucuses put a drooling homophobe who can't shut up about it at
1/25th the governance. Congrats!
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-07 00:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Iowa caucuses put a drooling homophobe who can't shut up about it at
1/25th the governance. Congrats!
If at any time you'd like to address what I said, or make any sense other
than to parrot your stupid talking points, feel free at any time.

Oh, and a decline in morals is a direct affront to the survival of this
nation and what corrupt democrats bank on. Their immoral appeals to class
warfare and the kind of envy we as a moral nation once rose above and made
us the greatest nation in the world being a classic example. Appeals to
crass envy is what the third-world is made of, and consists of one part
immorality, and one part stupidity.

Congrats.

And then there's this, but you'd have to have a pair of balls and give a
fuck about your nation and children's future, as opposed to being a gutless
narcissistic coward to give a shit.

Same Sex Marriage Countries - The Pattern
We can look at results in other countries for confirmation. For example, in
Norway, a country that has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early
nineties, illegitimacy is exploding. In Nordland, the most liberal county of
Norway, where they fly gay "rainbow" flags over their churches, illegitimacy
has soared-more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time do
so out of wedlock, and nearly 70 percent of all children are born out of
wedlock. Across the entire country of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39
percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.50

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, "When we look at Nordland and
Nord-Troendelag-the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway-we are peering as
far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is
almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has
almost totally disappeared."51

But it's not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other
countries. International surveys show a mutually re-enforcing relationship
between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. Natural marriage is weakest and
illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.52

You might say, "Correlation doesn't always indicate causation." Yes, but
often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts
society for the worse? You need look no further than the last forty years of
no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys
lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year53). No-fault divorce
laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country.
Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors
about the permanence of marriage. There is no question that liberalized
marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose
of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates
have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.

Same Sex Marriage Countries - Law and Behavior
Furthermore, homosexual activists are fighting to change marriage laws
because they know that there is a causal connection between law and
behavior. As people like Sullivan and Signorile have admitted, they don't
want to change the law so they can get married, but because they know that a
change in the law will change the attitudes and behaviors about marriage and
homosexuality for all of society.

Blankenhorn and Kurtz also understand the causal connection between the law,
attitudes, and behavior. That's why they argue so forcefully against
same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn asserts that anyone concerned about the
welfare of children cannot be a supporter of same-sex marriage.

He writes, "One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every
child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both."54

Why? Because, as data from other countries show, "redefining marriage to
include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken
still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every
child."55 Blankenhorn goes so far as to say that he is amazed at how
indifferent gay activists are about the negative effects of same-sex
marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, deny that marriage has
anything to do with children.56

Same Sex Marriage Countries - Restriction of Speech
He goes on to warn that if same-sex marriage is adopted, the claim that
"every child needs a father and a mother" will probably be viewed as
"divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech."57 He doesn't
have to be much of a prophet to predict that. Canada and Sweden already
restrict speech against homosexuality to the point that even pastors have
been jailed for quoting Bible verses.58 In the United States, the Democrat
Party continually puts forth "hate-crime" legislation which will lead to the
same result. Endorsement of same-sex marriage will only pave the way for the
hate-crime thought-police to get here faster.

Regarding the situation in Scandinavia, Kurtz writes, "Instead of
encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has
driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually
any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."59

Well, if marriage is not about children, what institution is about children?
And if we are going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should
the state endorse same-sex marriage at all? Contrary to what homosexual
activists assume, the state doesn't endorse marriage because people have
feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of
what marriage does for children, and in turn, for society. Society gets no
benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only
harm, as the connection to illegitimacy shows. The very future of children
and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women.
That's why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types
of relationships should never be legally equated.

We have enough problems already with illegitimacy in America. We don't need
to make matters worse. Unfortunately, if we go the route of other countries
and approve government-backed same-sex marriage, we will likely get the same
results-a significant rise in illegitimate parenthood and all of the social
problems that come from it. Children will be hurt the most, but so will you.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek.
For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.
Tim Crowley
2012-01-07 02:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Phlip
Iowa caucuses put a drooling homophobe who can't shut up about it at
1/25th the governance. Congrats!
If at any time you'd like to address what I said,
Fuck what you say. You'e a stupid racist bitch that screams lies and
hate all day long.

You have nothing to say, bitch.


hint: hide.
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-08 03:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Phlip
Iowa caucuses put a drooling homophobe who can't shut up about it at
1/25th the governance. Congrats!
If at any time you'd like to address what I said,
Fuck what you say. You'e a stupid racist bitch that screams lies and
hate all day long.
You have nothing to say, bitch.
BRAACK! Niggah boy. BRAACK!

http://tinyurl.com/3rjkk

"Typical white person"

-Hussein

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."

-Hussein

Hussein's associations:

Rev. Wright, whose church Hussein attended and supported financially for
over
20 years:

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is
controlled by rich white people."

Rev. Lowery, hand picked by Hussein to deliver the inaugural benediction:

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in
the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when
yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white
will embrace what is right."

Sonia Sotomayor, Hussein's pick for the SC:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life."

From Hussein's book:

"White man's greed runs a world in need."

Prof. Gates, anti-white racist who Obama says is a friend of his.

Obama advisor Van Jones:

"Only Suburban White Kids Shoot Up Schools"

"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child"

"White polluters steered poison into minority communities"

"Coates, who said he was testifying before the commission as a whistle
blower and in violation of his Justice supervisor's instructions, said that
there is a "hostile atmosphere" in the civil rights division that did not
"reflect race neutral policies." He said the country's major civil rights
organizations are also biased against race-neutral enforcement."

http://tinyurl.com/3x5ts8o



"In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over
the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther
Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil
rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims. "

http://tinyurl.com/3x8q42h

-Eddie Haskell
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-01-08 05:40:12 UTC
Permalink
==================================================================================
Figured you for being a Negro, Spitman.
Phlip
2012-01-07 00:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-07 01:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
No the fuck it wasn't, and you're a goddamned liar - a liar in support of a
lawless liar of a president that has no respect for the constitution, the
law, or you. He's a power mad third-world Hugo Chavez and you support every
bit of it because you are of a third-world mentality as well except in
serfdom.

Now, what's the next lie you are going to spew in support of your fuckin'
King, you pathetic fucking serf?

"Not only was the Senate not in recess when these purported appointments
were made, it constitutionally could not have been."
"Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of
Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the
other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess
of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate,
consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of
session every few days."

"The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting "pro
forma" sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless,
as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly
"pro forma" session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of
since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and
choose when he deems a Senate session to be "real.""

Now, why don't you get your third-world ass out of my country and move
somewhere where you can a content little serf? You don't have what it takes
to be an American. Get the fuck out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are-unconstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html

-Eddie Haskell
MattB
2012-01-07 01:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
I was a little upset when I heard what he had done until I saw how
he trapped the TP in admitting they were not in session.

Hope you know you are going to have Eddie all upset and screaming
with this reply.

Seems Eddie thinks the Tea Party is already in control of Congress.
That is far from the truth. Hopefully in 2012 they will be gone.
Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
2012-01-07 01:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
===============

Funny how Constitutional lawyers with PhD's bitch slap your VD infested
face again with facts you can't refute again as usual.

Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section


By Fred Lucas

January 5, 2012
- John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law who is an
expert on the constitutional separation of powers, says that the White House
simply ignored the section of the Constitution, which governs when Congress
can adjourn, when President Obama claimed to use the "recess" appointment
power on Wednesday to name a director to the Consumer Finance Protection
Bureau and three members to the National Labor Relations Board.

Eastman says that under the terms of the Constitution Congress was not in
recess this week, it was in session.

"They're ignoring that the recess clause was designed to fill vacancies that
occurred during the recess. These did not," said Eastman. "They are ignoring
entirely Section 5, Article 1. The Senate doesn't have the authority to
recess without the House's approval even if they wanted to. So Carney's
claim that this is just a gimmick completely ignores that the House didn't
authorize them to leave at all."

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution says: "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."

Because the Republican-controlled House did not allow the Senate to adjourn,
neither House was in recess.

Eastman, however, also said that the Senate in the last two decades has
given a more expansive meaning to advise and consent than the founders
envisioned. The intent, Eastman said, was to provide a check to prevent the
president from appointing relatives or other unqualified people to high
government posts.

The White House asserts that the so-called "recess appointments" Obama made
on Wednesday are constitutional because Congress was out of session for a
"sustained period of time."

"Our assessment is that Congress has been in recess and has made every
indication that it will be in recess for a sustained period of time, and
that gaveling in and gaveling out for seven seconds does not constitute a
recess with regard to the president's constitutional authority," White House
Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.

"If these gimmicks were all a Senate needed to do to prevent the president
from exercising his constitutional authority--any president--then no Senate
would, I mean, no president would ever be able to exercise it," said Carney.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president "shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such
inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have
Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session."

Despite this constitutional language, Obama made his appointments without
Senate approval.

Obama named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the
CFPB. He also named to the NLRB, Sharon Block, a deputy assistant in the
U.S. Labor Department who once worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy;
Terence F. Flynn, chief counsel to NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes, a
Republican; and Richard Griffin, the general counsel for the International
Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin also serves on the board of directors
for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a position he has held since
1994.

The constitutional legitimacy of these appointments will be questioned, said
Russell Weaver, a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the
University of Louisville.

"My guess is the president's action is illegal," Weaver told CNSNews.com.
"You can be confident there will be a court challenge the first time this
newly, allegedly appointed director takes an action where money is involved.
I don't think there is any doubt this will end up in the courts and go on
for years. If it's struck down, it would undermine everything that's done in
the meantime."

Both the executive and legislative branches--and both parties--have
historically exceeded their roles in the appointment process, said Bob
Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

"The clear purpose of the recess appointment clause was not to permit the
president to undermine the Senate's constitutional negative if senators go
home for the night or take a three-day weekend, but to permit the government
to continue functioning when the Senate elects not to do business for an
extended period of time," Turner told CNSNews.com. "The length of that time
ought to be established in good faith and reasonableness based upon the
totality of the circumstances--what is the vacancy and how urgent is it for
the nation to fill the position before the Senate is likely to return to do
such business?"

"I would add that this controversy is a consequence of constitutional
impropriety on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue," Turner said. "Rather than
limiting their review to assuring that 'no unfit person' be
appointed--blocking the appointment of unqualified relatives, college
roommates, big financial contributors, and the like--the Senate too often
perceives its role as preventing the president from having advisers and
subordinates who share his political views."

Michael Rappaport, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law,
said recess appointments can be problematic. "I don't think the Constitution
gives the authority under its original meaning," Rappaport told CNSNews.com.
"Even under the precedents, it is a dicey question. Under the current law,
it is not clear, although I would argue that the stronger side suggests the
president does not have the authority."

There is a strong argument that the president's power to make recess
appointments was intended to apply only when Congress was out of session,
but it's not entirely settled, said Brian Kalt, a professor at Michigan
State University College of Law.

"That still leaves the question of what to do when, as now, the Senate
claims that it is staying in session by holding these pro forma meetings
every few days. The president can argue that this doesn't count as being in
session, because the Senate isn't really ready to do any business like
voting on a nomination," Kalt told CNSNews.com. "Alternatively, he can argue
that the time between these pro forma meetings constitutes a recess."

"The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure because it has never really
been resolved in court. Presidents have pushed the boundaries on this and
while Senates have protested, nobody has stopped a president yet," Kalt
continued. "This time, the president is pushing the boundaries further. It's
hard to get a reviewable case out of these situations. I think that this
time we might get one, though."

Asked if the White House sought legal advice from the Justice Department,
Carney was not specific.

"I think I actually can say that we routinely consult with the Department of
Justice on a range of legal matters, but we also routinely don't delve into
the specifics of any confidential legal guidance that the president or the
White House in general would receive in the course of those consultations,"
Carney said. "So, I mean, I think that's just standard operating procedure."

Carney also said, "We feel very strongly that the Constitution and the legal
case is strongly on our side. But more importantly, this isn't about
process. This isn't about whether or not Congress is in session. If I could
digress for a minute, I think all of you could run up to Capitol Hill and
check out the House and Senate and see if you can find a single member of
Congress and tell me on this working day across America if Congress is in
session."
2849 Dead
2012-01-07 02:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
===============
Funny how Constitutional lawyers with PhD's bitch slap your VD infested
face again with facts you can't refute again as usual.
Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section
Someone forgot to tell the prof that Obama told Boner and Turtle that he
wanted the Congress to take up a debt-limit bill on the 10th, and they
told him--in writing--that they wouldn't be in session until the 16th.

Obama smiled, thanked them, and made his appointment, having verified
that Congress was in a recess exceeding three days.
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
By Fred Lucas
January 5, 2012
- John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law who
is an expert on the constitutional separation of powers, says that the
White House simply ignored the section of the Constitution, which
governs when Congress can adjourn, when President Obama claimed to use
the "recess" appointment power on Wednesday to name a director to the
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and three members to the National
Labor Relations Board.
Eastman says that under the terms of the Constitution Congress was not
in recess this week, it was in session.
"They're ignoring that the recess clause was designed to fill vacancies
that occurred during the recess. These did not," said Eastman. "They are
ignoring entirely Section 5, Article 1. The Senate doesn't have the
authority to recess without the House's approval even if they wanted to.
So Carney's claim that this is just a gimmick completely ignores that
the House didn't authorize them to leave at all."
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution says: "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."
Because the Republican-controlled House did not allow the Senate to
adjourn, neither House was in recess.
Eastman, however, also said that the Senate in the last two decades has
given a more expansive meaning to advise and consent than the founders
envisioned. The intent, Eastman said, was to provide a check to prevent
the president from appointing relatives or other unqualified people to
high government posts.
The White House asserts that the so-called "recess appointments" Obama
made on Wednesday are constitutional because Congress was out of session
for a "sustained period of time."
"Our assessment is that Congress has been in recess and has made every
indication that it will be in recess for a sustained period of time, and
that gaveling in and gaveling out for seven seconds does not constitute
a recess with regard to the president's constitutional authority," White
House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
"If these gimmicks were all a Senate needed to do to prevent the
president from exercising his constitutional authority--any
president--then no Senate would, I mean, no president would ever be able
to exercise it," said Carney.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president "shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in
the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall
have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of
the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of
their next Session."
Despite this constitutional language, Obama made his appointments
without Senate approval.
Obama named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of
the CFPB. He also named to the NLRB, Sharon Block, a deputy assistant in
the U.S. Labor Department who once worked with the late Sen. Ted
Kennedy; Terence F. Flynn, chief counsel to NLRB Board Member Brian
Hayes, a Republican; and Richard Griffin, the general counsel for the
International Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin also serves on the
board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a
position he has held since 1994.
The constitutional legitimacy of these appointments will be questioned,
said Russell Weaver, a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
at the University of Louisville.
"My guess is the president's action is illegal," Weaver told
CNSNews.com. "You can be confident there will be a court challenge the
first time this newly, allegedly appointed director takes an action
where money is involved. I don't think there is any doubt this will end
up in the courts and go on for years. If it's struck down, it would
undermine everything that's done in the meantime."
Both the executive and legislative branches--and both parties--have
historically exceeded their roles in the appointment process, said Bob
Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
"The clear purpose of the recess appointment clause was not to permit
the president to undermine the Senate's constitutional negative if
senators go home for the night or take a three-day weekend, but to
permit the government to continue functioning when the Senate elects not
to do business for an extended period of time," Turner told CNSNews.com.
"The length of that time ought to be established in good faith and
reasonableness based upon the totality of the circumstances--what is the
vacancy and how urgent is it for the nation to fill the position before
the Senate is likely to return to do such business?"
"I would add that this controversy is a consequence of constitutional
impropriety on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue," Turner said. "Rather
than limiting their review to assuring that 'no unfit person' be
appointed--blocking the appointment of unqualified relatives, college
roommates, big financial contributors, and the like--the Senate too
often perceives its role as preventing the president from having
advisers and subordinates who share his political views."
Michael Rappaport, a professor at the University of San Diego School of
Law, said recess appointments can be problematic. "I don't think the
Constitution gives the authority under its original meaning," Rappaport
told CNSNews.com. "Even under the precedents, it is a dicey question.
Under the current law, it is not clear, although I would argue that the
stronger side suggests the president does not have the authority."
There is a strong argument that the president's power to make recess
appointments was intended to apply only when Congress was out of
session, but it's not entirely settled, said Brian Kalt, a professor at
Michigan State University College of Law.
"That still leaves the question of what to do when, as now, the Senate
claims that it is staying in session by holding these pro forma meetings
every few days. The president can argue that this doesn't count as being
in session, because the Senate isn't really ready to do any business
like voting on a nomination," Kalt told CNSNews.com. "Alternatively, he
can argue that the time between these pro forma meetings constitutes a
recess."
"The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure because it has never
really been resolved in court. Presidents have pushed the boundaries on
this and while Senates have protested, nobody has stopped a president
yet," Kalt continued. "This time, the president is pushing the
boundaries further. It's hard to get a reviewable case out of these
situations. I think that this time we might get one, though."
Asked if the White House sought legal advice from the Justice
Department, Carney was not specific.
"I think I actually can say that we routinely consult with the
Department of Justice on a range of legal matters, but we also routinely
don't delve into the specifics of any confidential legal guidance that
the president or the White House in general would receive in the course
of those consultations," Carney said. "So, I mean, I think that's just
standard operating procedure."
Carney also said, "We feel very strongly that the Constitution and the
legal case is strongly on our side. But more importantly, this isn't
about process. This isn't about whether or not Congress is in session.
If I could digress for a minute, I think all of you could run up to
Capitol Hill and check out the House and Senate and see if you can find
a single member of Congress and tell me on this working day across
America if Congress is in session."
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
2012-01-07 02:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
===============
Funny how Constitutional lawyers with PhD's bitch slap your VD infested
face again with facts you can't refute again as usual.
Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section
Someone forgot to tell the prof that Obama told Boner and Turtle that he
wanted the Congress to take up a debt-limit bill on the 10th, and they
told him--in writing--that they wouldn't be in session until the 16th.
==========
Boehner is not the Senate Leader and the senate was in session, you stupid
pile of Baboon shit.
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
By Fred Lucas
January 5, 2012
- John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law who
is an expert on the constitutional separation of powers, says that the
White House simply ignored the section of the Constitution, which
governs when Congress can adjourn, when President Obama claimed to use
the "recess" appointment power on Wednesday to name a director to the
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and three members to the National
Labor Relations Board.
Eastman says that under the terms of the Constitution Congress was not
in recess this week, it was in session.
"They're ignoring that the recess clause was designed to fill vacancies
that occurred during the recess. These did not," said Eastman. "They are
ignoring entirely Section 5, Article 1. The Senate doesn't have the
authority to recess without the House's approval even if they wanted to.
So Carney's claim that this is just a gimmick completely ignores that
the House didn't authorize them to leave at all."
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution says: "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."
Because the Republican-controlled House did not allow the Senate to
adjourn, neither House was in recess.
Eastman, however, also said that the Senate in the last two decades has
given a more expansive meaning to advise and consent than the founders
envisioned. The intent, Eastman said, was to provide a check to prevent
the president from appointing relatives or other unqualified people to
high government posts.
The White House asserts that the so-called "recess appointments" Obama
made on Wednesday are constitutional because Congress was out of session
for a "sustained period of time."
"Our assessment is that Congress has been in recess and has made every
indication that it will be in recess for a sustained period of time, and
that gaveling in and gaveling out for seven seconds does not constitute
a recess with regard to the president's constitutional authority," White
House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
"If these gimmicks were all a Senate needed to do to prevent the
president from exercising his constitutional authority--any
president--then no Senate would, I mean, no president would ever be able
to exercise it," said Carney.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president "shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in
the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall
have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of
the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of
their next Session."
Despite this constitutional language, Obama made his appointments
without Senate approval.
Obama named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of
the CFPB. He also named to the NLRB, Sharon Block, a deputy assistant in
the U.S. Labor Department who once worked with the late Sen. Ted
Kennedy; Terence F. Flynn, chief counsel to NLRB Board Member Brian
Hayes, a Republican; and Richard Griffin, the general counsel for the
International Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin also serves on the
board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a
position he has held since 1994.
The constitutional legitimacy of these appointments will be questioned,
said Russell Weaver, a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
at the University of Louisville.
"My guess is the president's action is illegal," Weaver told
CNSNews.com. "You can be confident there will be a court challenge the
first time this newly, allegedly appointed director takes an action
where money is involved. I don't think there is any doubt this will end
up in the courts and go on for years. If it's struck down, it would
undermine everything that's done in the meantime."
Both the executive and legislative branches--and both parties--have
historically exceeded their roles in the appointment process, said Bob
Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
"The clear purpose of the recess appointment clause was not to permit
the president to undermine the Senate's constitutional negative if
senators go home for the night or take a three-day weekend, but to
permit the government to continue functioning when the Senate elects not
to do business for an extended period of time," Turner told CNSNews.com.
"The length of that time ought to be established in good faith and
reasonableness based upon the totality of the circumstances--what is the
vacancy and how urgent is it for the nation to fill the position before
the Senate is likely to return to do such business?"
"I would add that this controversy is a consequence of constitutional
impropriety on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue," Turner said. "Rather
than limiting their review to assuring that 'no unfit person' be
appointed--blocking the appointment of unqualified relatives, college
roommates, big financial contributors, and the like--the Senate too
often perceives its role as preventing the president from having
advisers and subordinates who share his political views."
Michael Rappaport, a professor at the University of San Diego School of
Law, said recess appointments can be problematic. "I don't think the
Constitution gives the authority under its original meaning," Rappaport
told CNSNews.com. "Even under the precedents, it is a dicey question.
Under the current law, it is not clear, although I would argue that the
stronger side suggests the president does not have the authority."
There is a strong argument that the president's power to make recess
appointments was intended to apply only when Congress was out of
session, but it's not entirely settled, said Brian Kalt, a professor at
Michigan State University College of Law.
"That still leaves the question of what to do when, as now, the Senate
claims that it is staying in session by holding these pro forma meetings
every few days. The president can argue that this doesn't count as being
in session, because the Senate isn't really ready to do any business
like voting on a nomination," Kalt told CNSNews.com. "Alternatively, he
can argue that the time between these pro forma meetings constitutes a
recess."
"The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure because it has never
really been resolved in court. Presidents have pushed the boundaries on
this and while Senates have protested, nobody has stopped a president
yet," Kalt continued. "This time, the president is pushing the
boundaries further. It's hard to get a reviewable case out of these
situations. I think that this time we might get one, though."
Asked if the White House sought legal advice from the Justice
Department, Carney was not specific.
"I think I actually can say that we routinely consult with the
Department of Justice on a range of legal matters, but we also routinely
don't delve into the specifics of any confidential legal guidance that
the president or the White House in general would receive in the course
of those consultations," Carney said. "So, I mean, I think that's just
standard operating procedure."
Carney also said, "We feel very strongly that the Constitution and the
legal case is strongly on our side. But more importantly, this isn't
about process. This isn't about whether or not Congress is in session.
If I could digress for a minute, I think all of you could run up to
Capitol Hill and check out the House and Senate and see if you can find
a single member of Congress and tell me on this working day across
America if Congress is in session."
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
2849 Dead
2012-01-07 06:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
Post by Eddie Haskell
news:0d42b093-062f-488e-b1b5-
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
===============
Funny how Constitutional lawyers with PhD's bitch slap your VD
infested face again with facts you can't refute again as usual.
Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section
Someone forgot to tell the prof that Obama told Boner and Turtle that
he wanted the Congress to take up a debt-limit bill on the 10th, and
they told him--in writing--that they wouldn't be in session until the
16th. ==========
Boehner is not the Senate Leader and the senate was in session, you
stupid pile of Baboon shit.
Not according to O'Connor, who advised the Prez in writing that they
couldn't consider the debt-limit bill until the 16th, when they
reconvened.

In case you haven't noticed, Obama's a lot smarter than the crap
politicians the GOP has in Congress.
Post by Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
Post by Eddie Haskell
By Fred Lucas
January 5, 2012
- John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law who
is an expert on the constitutional separation of powers, says that the
White House simply ignored the section of the Constitution, which
governs when Congress can adjourn, when President Obama claimed to use
the "recess" appointment power on Wednesday to name a director to the
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and three members to the National
Labor Relations Board.
Eastman says that under the terms of the Constitution Congress was not
in recess this week, it was in session.
"They're ignoring that the recess clause was designed to fill
vacancies that occurred during the recess. These did not," said
Eastman. "They are ignoring entirely Section 5, Article 1. The Senate
doesn't have the authority to recess without the House's approval even
if they wanted to. So Carney's claim that this is just a gimmick
completely ignores that the House didn't authorize them to leave at
all."
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution says: "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."
Because the Republican-controlled House did not allow the Senate to
adjourn, neither House was in recess.
Eastman, however, also said that the Senate in the last two decades
has given a more expansive meaning to advise and consent than the
founders envisioned. The intent, Eastman said, was to provide a check
to prevent the president from appointing relatives or other
unqualified people to high government posts.
The White House asserts that the so-called "recess appointments" Obama
made on Wednesday are constitutional because Congress was out of
session for a "sustained period of time."
"Our assessment is that Congress has been in recess and has made every
indication that it will be in recess for a sustained period of time,
and that gaveling in and gaveling out for seven seconds does not
constitute a recess with regard to the president's constitutional
authority," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
"If these gimmicks were all a Senate needed to do to prevent the
president from exercising his constitutional authority--any
president--then no Senate would, I mean, no president would ever be
able to exercise it," said Carney.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges
of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the
Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which
shall expire at the End of their next Session."
Despite this constitutional language, Obama made his appointments
without Senate approval.
Obama named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director
of the CFPB. He also named to the NLRB, Sharon Block, a deputy
assistant in the U.S. Labor Department who once worked with the late
Sen. Ted Kennedy; Terence F. Flynn, chief counsel to NLRB Board Member
Brian Hayes, a Republican; and Richard Griffin, the general counsel
for the International Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin also
serves on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating
Committee, a position he has held since 1994.
The constitutional legitimacy of these appointments will be
questioned, said Russell Weaver, a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis
School of Law at the University of Louisville.
"My guess is the president's action is illegal," Weaver told
CNSNews.com. "You can be confident there will be a court challenge the
first time this newly, allegedly appointed director takes an action
where money is involved. I don't think there is any doubt this will
end up in the courts and go on for years. If it's struck down, it
would undermine everything that's done in the meantime."
Both the executive and legislative branches--and both parties--have
historically exceeded their roles in the appointment process, said Bob
Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
"The clear purpose of the recess appointment clause was not to permit
the president to undermine the Senate's constitutional negative if
senators go home for the night or take a three-day weekend, but to
permit the government to continue functioning when the Senate elects
not to do business for an extended period of time," Turner told
CNSNews.com. "The length of that time ought to be established in good
faith and reasonableness based upon the totality of the
circumstances--what is the vacancy and how urgent is it for the nation
to fill the position before the Senate is likely to return to do such
business?"
"I would add that this controversy is a consequence of constitutional
impropriety on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue," Turner said. "Rather
than limiting their review to assuring that 'no unfit person' be
appointed--blocking the appointment of unqualified relatives, college
roommates, big financial contributors, and the like--the Senate too
often perceives its role as preventing the president from having
advisers and subordinates who share his political views."
Michael Rappaport, a professor at the University of San Diego School
of Law, said recess appointments can be problematic. "I don't think
the Constitution gives the authority under its original meaning,"
Rappaport told CNSNews.com. "Even under the precedents, it is a dicey
question. Under the current law, it is not clear, although I would
argue that the stronger side suggests the president does not have the
authority."
There is a strong argument that the president's power to make recess
appointments was intended to apply only when Congress was out of
session, but it's not entirely settled, said Brian Kalt, a professor
at Michigan State University College of Law.
"That still leaves the question of what to do when, as now, the Senate
claims that it is staying in session by holding these pro forma
meetings every few days. The president can argue that this doesn't
count as being in session, because the Senate isn't really ready to do
any business like voting on a nomination," Kalt told CNSNews.com.
"Alternatively, he can argue that the time between these pro forma
meetings constitutes a recess."
"The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure because it has never
really been resolved in court. Presidents have pushed the boundaries
on this and while Senates have protested, nobody has stopped a
president yet," Kalt continued. "This time, the president is pushing
the boundaries further. It's hard to get a reviewable case out of
these situations. I think that this time we might get one, though."
Asked if the White House sought legal advice from the Justice
Department, Carney was not specific.
"I think I actually can say that we routinely consult with the
Department of Justice on a range of legal matters, but we also
routinely don't delve into the specifics of any confidential legal
guidance that the president or the White House in general would
receive in the course of those consultations," Carney said. "So, I
mean, I think that's just standard operating procedure."
Carney also said, "We feel very strongly that the Constitution and the
legal case is strongly on our side. But more importantly, this isn't
about process. This isn't about whether or not Congress is in session.
If I could digress for a minute, I think all of you could run up to
Capitol Hill and check out the House and Senate and see if you can
find a single member of Congress and tell me on this working day
across America if Congress is in session."
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Vandar
2012-01-07 03:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
(2) APPOINTMENT.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Director
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173enr.txt.pdf
Page 589
Dänk 420
2012-01-09 15:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
2849 Dead
2012-01-09 18:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of Congress
on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do members of
Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet right
wing talking points.
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-09 19:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was. Game
set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of Congress
on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do members of
Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet right
wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught him.
Goebbels would be proud.

-Eddie Haskell
2849 Dead
2012-01-09 20:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet right
wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
BeamMeUpScotty
2012-01-09 20:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet right
wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
Stopped a bit of waste that Democrats and Obama would have passed
without anyone to vote against them.


Billions to Unions and Acorn types and trillions to the Solyndra's of
the world.
--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.
2849 Dead
2012-01-09 21:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet
right wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
Stopped a bit of waste that Democrats and Obama would have passed
without anyone to vote against them.
Such as?
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Billions to Unions and Acorn types and trillions to the Solyndra's of
the world.
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-09 21:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet right
wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
Done what they can to stop you from breaking the country while you play
games.

Speaking of a proposed paltry 60 billion cut to a 3.73 trillion dollar
budget slated to run a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit:

"SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I always use the word "extreme." That's what
the caucus instructed me to do the other week, extreme cuts and all these
riders. And Boehner's in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party, there is
going to inevitably [be] a shutdown. What we're trying to do here --"

That's why nothing can get done. Your party is more interested in political
games than the welfare of the country.

And then there's just the other week when republicans wanted to extend the
payroll tax cut for a year while democrats only wanted to extend it for two
months because the DNC / MSM cabal was claiming that republicans didn't want
one at all. Then your King Hussein made a recess appointment after the
senate passed the two month extended proforma in secession.

Games and corruption while the country burns to the ground and you support
every corrupt bit of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/government-shutdown-unavoidable#ixzz1I7ONwgM3

-Eddie Haskell
2849 Dead
2012-01-09 21:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet
right wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
Done what they can to stop you from breaking the country while you play
games.
Speaking of a proposed paltry 60 billion cut to a 3.73 trillion dollar
"SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I always use the word "extreme." That's
what the caucus instructed me to do the other week, extreme cuts and all
these riders. And Boehner's in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party,
there is going to inevitably [be] a shutdown. What we're trying to do
here --"
That's why nothing can get done. Your party is more interested in
political games than the welfare of the country.
So you can't answer the question either. Nice of you to highlight your
incompetence.
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-09 21:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5? Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show. They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet
right wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
Done what they can to stop you from breaking the country while you play
games.
Speaking of a proposed paltry 60 billion cut to a 3.73 trillion dollar
"SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I always use the word "extreme." That's
what the caucus instructed me to do the other week, extreme cuts and all
these riders. And Boehner's in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party,
there is going to inevitably [be] a shutdown. What we're trying to do
here --"
That's why nothing can get done. Your party is more interested in
political games than the welfare of the country.
So you can't answer the question either. Nice of you to highlight your
incompetence.
Nice of you to highlight your lying.

-Eddie Haskell
Dänk 420
2012-01-10 09:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by 2849 Dead
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution. Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-
are...
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Phlip
Post by Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Oh, and Obama asked if Congress was out of session first. It was.
Game set and match.
Given that the Constitution sets the date for the beginning of
Congress on January 3, why was it out of session on January 5?  Do
members of Congress do any work at all?
Not when the GOP is running the show.  They just fuck around with
meaningless crap about the national motto and resolutions for pet right
wing talking points.
Aww, look. He's parroting the latest taking point the DNC has taught
him. Goebbels would be proud.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell us something meaningful the House has done that would improve the
lives of Americans.
Impeachment of a criminal President would have been nice, but the
Democrap-controlled House decided that farm subsidies were more
important than upholding the Constitution.

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2010/11/03/farm-bill-didnt-save-nancy-pelosis-majority/

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed through the colossal 2008 farm bill
over President George W. Bush’s veto, calculating that it would help
preserve the political viability of conservative rural Democrats. An
analysis just out by Environmental Working Group shows it didn’t
work."

Matt
2012-01-07 00:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Recess Appointment: An appointment made during a time when neither
House is in session,
exactly as Mr. Meese stated.

In session: The House or Senate must meet for regular meetings.

Now...

HONOLULLU (AP) — President Barack Obama is delaying his request for
another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit at the
request of congressional leaders. It’s basically because of a
technicality.

The White House had been ready to ask for the increase Friday because
the government is within $100 billion of exhausting its current
borrowing authority. Congress would then have 15 days to reject the
request, though Obama would veto any objections in order to ensure
that the government does not default on its obligations.

But with Congress not due to return to Washington until mid-January,
lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session
during the 15-day window period allowed for objections.

So, according to BOTH HOUSES, they were not in session.

You, and Ed Meese, are idiots. Not that we didn't know this.

Matt
Eddie Haskell
2012-01-07 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the
constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Recess Appointment: An appointment made during a time when neither
House is in session,
exactly as Mr. Meese stated.
In session: The House or Senate must meet for regular meetings.
Now...
HONOLULLU (AP) — President Barack Obama is delaying his request for
another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit at the
request of congressional leaders. It’s basically because of a
technicality.
The White House had been ready to ask for the increase Friday because
the government is within $100 billion of exhausting its current
borrowing authority. Congress would then have 15 days to reject the
request, though Obama would veto any objections in order to ensure
that the government does not default on its obligations.
But with Congress not due to return to Washington until mid-January,
lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session
during the 15-day window period allowed for objections.
So, according to BOTH HOUSES, they were not in session.
You, and Ed Meese, are idiots. Not that we didn't know this.
Hussein and the democrats argued that the senate was in session proforma so
that they could extend the payroll tax cut for 2 months instead of one year
like the republicans wanted while the fascist MSM did their bidding to make
it look like republicans were against a tax cut at all, now they do a 180
and claim that the senate isn't in session so Hussein can appoint his
cronies that couldn't pass the senate even though it's controlled by
democrats.

If want to live under a corrupt third-world socialist dictatorship then get
the fuck out of my country, you fucking liar.

-Eddie Haskell
Matt
2012-01-07 03:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Recess Appointment: An appointment made during a time when neither
House is in session,
exactly as Mr. Meese stated.
In session: The House or Senate must meet for regular meetings.
Now...
HONOLULLU (AP) — President Barack Obama is delaying his request for
another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit at the
request of congressional leaders. It’s basically because of a
technicality.
The White House had been ready to ask for the increase Friday because
the government is within $100 billion of exhausting its current
borrowing authority. Congress would then have 15 days to reject the
request, though Obama would veto any objections in order to ensure
that the government does not default on its obligations.
But with Congress not due to return to Washington until mid-January,
lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session
during the 15-day window period allowed for objections.
So, according to BOTH HOUSES, they were not in session.
You, and Ed Meese, are idiots. Not that we didn't know this.
Hussein and the democrats argued that the senate was in session proforma so
that they could extend the payroll tax cut for 2 months instead of one year
like the republicans wanted while the fascist MSM did their bidding to make
it look like republicans were against a tax cut at all, now they do a 180
and claim that the senate isn't in session so Hussein can appoint his
cronies that couldn't pass the senate even though it's controlled by
democrats.
If you do not wish to address my point, feel free to drop dead.
Post by Eddie Haskell
If want to live under a corrupt third-world socialist dictatorship
Too bad, Mikey Poo Flannigan.

FOUR MORE YEARS thanks to YOU, Mikey Poo Flannigan.

FOUR MORE YEARS!

Matt
Obama's 11% unemployment Rate
2012-01-07 01:43:27 UTC
Permalink
"Matt" <***@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:09d8e6f0-9c5b-40bf-bb93-***@n39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...


Constitutional Scholar: White House Entirely Ignoring Article 1, Section


By Fred Lucas

January 5, 2012
- John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law who is an
expert on the constitutional separation of powers, says that the White House
simply ignored the section of the Constitution, which governs when Congress
can adjourn, when President Obama claimed to use the "recess" appointment
power on Wednesday to name a director to the Consumer Finance Protection
Bureau and three members to the National Labor Relations Board.

Eastman says that under the terms of the Constitution Congress was not in
recess this week, it was in session.

"They're ignoring that the recess clause was designed to fill vacancies that
occurred during the recess. These did not," said Eastman. "They are ignoring
entirely Section 5, Article 1. The Senate doesn't have the authority to
recess without the House's approval even if they wanted to. So Carney's
claim that this is just a gimmick completely ignores that the House didn't
authorize them to leave at all."

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution says: "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."

Because the Republican-controlled House did not allow the Senate to adjourn,
neither House was in recess.

Eastman, however, also said that the Senate in the last two decades has
given a more expansive meaning to advise and consent than the founders
envisioned. The intent, Eastman said, was to provide a check to prevent the
president from appointing relatives or other unqualified people to high
government posts.

The White House asserts that the so-called "recess appointments" Obama made
on Wednesday are constitutional because Congress was out of session for a
"sustained period of time."

"Our assessment is that Congress has been in recess and has made every
indication that it will be in recess for a sustained period of time, and
that gaveling in and gaveling out for seven seconds does not constitute a
recess with regard to the president's constitutional authority," White House
Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.

"If these gimmicks were all a Senate needed to do to prevent the president
from exercising his constitutional authority--any president--then no Senate
would, I mean, no president would ever be able to exercise it," said Carney.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says that the president "shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such
inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have
Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session."

Despite this constitutional language, Obama made his appointments without
Senate approval.

Obama named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the
CFPB. He also named to the NLRB, Sharon Block, a deputy assistant in the
U.S. Labor Department who once worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy;
Terence F. Flynn, chief counsel to NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes, a
Republican; and Richard Griffin, the general counsel for the International
Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin also serves on the board of directors
for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a position he has held since
1994.

The constitutional legitimacy of these appointments will be questioned, said
Russell Weaver, a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the
University of Louisville.

"My guess is the president's action is illegal," Weaver told CNSNews.com.
"You can be confident there will be a court challenge the first time this
newly, allegedly appointed director takes an action where money is involved.
I don't think there is any doubt this will end up in the courts and go on
for years. If it's struck down, it would undermine everything that's done in
the meantime."

Both the executive and legislative branches--and both parties--have
historically exceeded their roles in the appointment process, said Bob
Turner, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

"The clear purpose of the recess appointment clause was not to permit the
president to undermine the Senate's constitutional negative if senators go
home for the night or take a three-day weekend, but to permit the government
to continue functioning when the Senate elects not to do business for an
extended period of time," Turner told CNSNews.com. "The length of that time
ought to be established in good faith and reasonableness based upon the
totality of the circumstances--what is the vacancy and how urgent is it for
the nation to fill the position before the Senate is likely to return to do
such business?"

"I would add that this controversy is a consequence of constitutional
impropriety on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue," Turner said. "Rather than
limiting their review to assuring that 'no unfit person' be
appointed--blocking the appointment of unqualified relatives, college
roommates, big financial contributors, and the like--the Senate too often
perceives its role as preventing the president from having advisers and
subordinates who share his political views."

Michael Rappaport, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law,
said recess appointments can be problematic. "I don't think the Constitution
gives the authority under its original meaning," Rappaport told CNSNews.com.
"Even under the precedents, it is a dicey question. Under the current law,
it is not clear, although I would argue that the stronger side suggests the
president does not have the authority."

There is a strong argument that the president's power to make recess
appointments was intended to apply only when Congress was out of session,
but it's not entirely settled, said Brian Kalt, a professor at Michigan
State University College of Law.

"That still leaves the question of what to do when, as now, the Senate
claims that it is staying in session by holding these pro forma meetings
every few days. The president can argue that this doesn't count as being in
session, because the Senate isn't really ready to do any business like
voting on a nomination," Kalt told CNSNews.com. "Alternatively, he can argue
that the time between these pro forma meetings constitutes a recess."

"The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure because it has never really
been resolved in court. Presidents have pushed the boundaries on this and
while Senates have protested, nobody has stopped a president yet," Kalt
continued. "This time, the president is pushing the boundaries further. It's
hard to get a reviewable case out of these situations. I think that this
time we might get one, though."

Asked if the White House sought legal advice from the Justice Department,
Carney was not specific.

"I think I actually can say that we routinely consult with the Department of
Justice on a range of legal matters, but we also routinely don't delve into
the specifics of any confidential legal guidance that the president or the
White House in general would receive in the course of those consultations,"
Carney said. "So, I mean, I think that's just standard operating procedure."

Carney also said, "We feel very strongly that the Constitution and the legal
case is strongly on our side. But more importantly, this isn't about
process. This isn't about whether or not Congress is in session. If I could
digress for a minute, I think all of you could run up to Capitol Hill and
check out the House and Senate and see if you can find a single member of
Congress and tell me on this working day across America if Congress is in
session."
RichTravsky
2012-01-08 01:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-recess-appointments-are...
-Eddie Haskell
Recess Appointment: An appointment made during a time when neither
House is in session,
exactly as Mr. Meese stated.
In session: The House or Senate must meet for regular meetings.
Now...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/obama-delays-petition-for-12t-debt-limit-increase-at-request-of-congressional-leaders/2011/12/30/gIQA0PDnQP_story.html
Post by Matt
HONOLULLU (AP) — President Barack Obama is delaying his request for
another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit at the
request of congressional leaders. It’s basically because of a
technicality.
The White House had been ready to ask for the increase Friday because
the government is within $100 billion of exhausting its current
borrowing authority. Congress would then have 15 days to reject the
request, though Obama would veto any objections in order to ensure
that the government does not default on its obligations.
But with Congress not due to return to Washington until mid-January,
lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session
during the 15-day window period allowed for objections.
So, according to BOTH HOUSES, they were not in session.
You, and Ed Meese, are idiots. Not that we didn't know this.
Matt
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-01-07 04:44:07 UTC
Permalink
=======================================================================
And we owe it all to the great society and the fact that Johnson has those
niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.
And hell, white folks was in caves while blacks was building empires. They
taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them
Greek homos ever got around to it.
Dänk 420
2012-01-08 07:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
Given how you cheered as Emperor Bush wiped his ass with the
Constitution, you have no reason to object to Chairman Obama flushing
the soiled remains down the toilet.
BeamMeUpScotty
2012-01-08 07:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
Given how you cheered as Emperor Bush wiped his ass with the
Constitution, you have no reason to object to Chairman Obama flushing
the soiled remains down the toilet.
Bush isn't President any longer is he....
--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.
BeamMeUpScotty
2012-01-08 07:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dänk 420
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
Given how you cheered as Emperor Bush wiped his ass with the
Constitution, you have no reason to object to Chairman Obama flushing
the soiled remains down the toilet.
Bush isn't President any longer is he....

With Obama blaming all of today's failures on Bush I can understand your
confusion. It's hard to believe Obama has been President for three
years and has yet to do anything or fix anything.
--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.
Dänk 420
2012-01-09 15:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
This, after their lying about Bush's supposed affronts to the constitution.
Something they couldn't care less about.
You are truly unique in that most rightards try to pretend they never
voted for George W. Bush, with many joining the Tea Party where they
can live in a fantasy world where his presidency never existed. Bush
has become the Republican Party's Trotsky, his existence purged from
Party records, forced to live out the remainder of his days under
house arrest.

Watching the Republican "debates," it is interesting to note that NONE
of the candidates EVER mentions Bush. They don't even try to distance
themselves from him, out of fear of invoking his memory. Even Rick
Perry, Bush's former Lt. Governor, never talks about him.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...