New Preamble "I The One" no more We The People

icedancer2theend said:
So, apple, Obama's recent appointment is unconstitutional. Are you saying that is OK?
Click to expand...

No, it's not OK but certainly understandable. Even if the appointments are ultimately deemed unconstitutional it will bring to the citizen's attention the gridlock and Repub stalling. It could very well work in Obama's favor.
 
apple0154 said:
No, it's not OK but certainly understandable. Even if the appointments are ultimately deemed unconstitutional it will bring to the citizen's attention the gridlock and Repub stalling. It could very well work in Obama's favor.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous logic! Here we are faced with a very real crisis- Our Constitutional protections, regarding the separation of powers, has been assaulted in the most brazen way and you thinks it's OK in the long run, because of those bad republicans...
 
apple0154 said:
No, it's not OK but certainly understandable. Even if the appointments are ultimately deemed unconstitutional it will bring to the citizen's attention the gridlock and Repub stalling. It could very well work in Obama's favor.
Click to expand...

If the House wants to play that game, then they have no business whining about what the president does. I'd like to know how they justify holding up business with this silly ploy. And people wonder why their ratings are in the single digits (and that's from the Rasmussen hacks, yet.)

"House Republicans intend to remain in pro-forma session throughout the holidays, and a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it's likely the Senate will do the same."

Visitors to the galleries sometimes are puzzled to see the Senate or House come into session and then adjourn within a few seconds. Why does Congress bother with these short pro forma (a Latin phrase meaning “as a matter of form”) sessions? The Constitution says that neither the Senate nor the House may adjourn for more than three days without the other's consent (Article 1, Section 5). This requirement prevents either house from trying to delay legislation by refusing to meet. Rather than always having to ask the other body's permission not to meet, the Senate or House simply holds a pro forma session in which one member gavels the chamber to order and then immediately declares it adjourned. Regardless of how briefly this session lasts, it counts as a day's session. Pro forma sessions allow senators or representatives more time to spend in committee hearings or other business off the floor.
 
christiefan915 said:
If the House wants to play that game, then they have no business whining about what the president does. I'd like to know how they justify holding up business with this silly ploy. And people wonder why their ratings are in the single digits (and that's from the Rasmussen hacks, yet.)

"House Republicans intend to remain in pro-forma session throughout the holidays, and a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it's likely the Senate will do the same."

Visitors to the galleries sometimes are puzzled to see the Senate or House come into session and then adjourn within a few seconds. Why does Congress bother with these short pro forma (a Latin phrase meaning “as a matter of form”) sessions? The Constitution says that neither the Senate nor the House may adjourn for more than three days without the other's consent (Article 1, Section 5). This requirement prevents either house from trying to delay legislation by refusing to meet. Rather than always having to ask the other body's permission not to meet, the Senate or House simply holds a pro forma session in which one member gavels the chamber to order and then immediately declares it adjourned. Regardless of how briefly this session lasts, it counts as a day's session. Pro forma sessions allow senators or representatives more time to spend in committee hearings or other business off the floor.
Click to expand...

More hypocrisy from the infamous hypocrite chris... This is the exact behavior of Reid's Senate leadership in 2007, which then Senator Obama supported, to prevent Bush appointments! Unlike Obama's unconstitutional actions, what the senate, then and now, did was Constitutional. But leave it to you to make it seem like this is just republican tricks.
 
Last edited:
icedancer2theend said:
That's ridiculous logic! Here we are faced with a very real crisis- Our Constitutional protections, regarding the separation of powers, has been assaulted in the most brazen way and you thinks it's OK in the long run, because of those bad republicans...
Click to expand...

Have you taken a look at what's happening to people? There was a segment on 60 Minutes(?) depicting where a middle aged lady was advised to remortgage her home shortly after her husband died as she required income. The person writing the mortgage knew she wouldn't be able to afford the repayment and would lose her home as the interest increased. Rather than advise her to try to sell the home they basically stole it out from under her.

(On a personal note about 10 years ago a credit card company increased my limit to the equivalent of my net yearly take home pay. Fortunately, I didn't get hooked in, however, how many people did and ended up bankrupt?)

That’s predatory lending and the person Obama appointed was to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (regulates financial products like credits cards, mortgages, and payday loans.) Don’t you think there needs to be someone there, ASAP? If you do a bit of research you’ll find the Repubs have refused to OK anyone for that position because they don’t want anyone there. They don’t want the laws that the protection agency has to be put into effect.

As for there being a real crisis I couldn't agree more. Obama said there is a time when the President has to act for the citizen's benefit. The goodwill that Congress is supposed to exhibit has disappeared. It's time for Obama's "We can't wait" campaign to get rolling.

People keep saying Obama hasn't/isn't doing anything. He's trying but is being stopped at every turn and that is resulting in people being harmed.

Whether or not the appointments clear at least the public has been made aware. Let the Repubs make a big deal out of it and let's see what side the citizens take. It's the perfect debate for an election year. :)
 
What's unconstitutional about a recess appointment? Does this mean a pocket veto or an unsigned law are also unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top