They told me if I voted for John McCain...

[Howey]

I love, as John Stewart pointed out, it wasn't the indefinite detentions of American Citizens (that Obama, with a disclaimer said he wouldn't do) that got Congress (Republicans) riled (no, they liked that one...dirty fuckin terrorists!)...it was...the recess appointment, done during a non-recess, that was LITERALLY over in 30 seconds...30...fucking...seconds.

It's a game of asshole poker.  "I was watching that!"  "You turned the TV on, walked out of the room 30 seconds later, left to the store, met your girlfriend for some pizza and then came home with 5 minutes of the movie left."  "Yea!, but I was fucking watching that!" *sigh*

I just watched the Jon Stewart piece, a magnificent lesson in the idiocy of the republican congress.

[Howey]

You do realize that makes my point don't you?

Or...maybe you don't!

Is your point:

a. Nancy Pelosi and many House Democrats actually show up to work during a session called by the single republican there? And actually demand that they work?

b. The single House republican has a penile affection for a gavel with a big head and only wanted to wrap his arms around it with no intention of actually working?

c. This is a socialist communist pinko fag conspiracy generated by CSPAN?

[Howey]

(never mind that the President requested it). 

One signing statement later and countless disclaimers before and since, and you're still sitting in that Circle Jerk of Attribution™?

Gawd...that lilDick must be sore...

Here's some [http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/obama_to_basically_ignore_congress_terrorists-in-military-custody_mandate.php]lube:[/url]

Officials like FBI Director Robert Mueller had worried that Section 1022 of the NDAA “lacks clarity” about how law enforcement officials should handle a suspected terrorist at the time of arrest. That section required individuals who weren’t citizens or lawful U.S. residents who have had ties to al-Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” to be placed into the military system — facts that could be difficult to determine right off the bat (“They don’t wear al-Qaeda hats,” one law enforcement official official told TPM.)

A senior administration official said that Obama took as long as he did to actually sign the NDAA to give officials the most amount of time to implement procedures which are supposed to be in place 60 days after he signed the bill into law. His signing statement indicated that the White House could seek modifications to the bill from Congress if they find the guidelines unworkable.

But broadly, the administration will interpret the law in a way that gives them the ability to wave any military custody requirement and enact it in a way that allows counterterrorism flexibility.

[lil mike]

Is your point:

a. Nancy Pelosi and many House Democrats actually show up to work during a session called by the single republican there? And actually demand that they work?

b. The single House republican has a penile affection for a gavel with a big head and only wanted to wrap his arms around it with no intention of actually working?

c. This is a socialist communist pinko fag conspiracy generated by CSPAN?

My point was that Congress was not in recess.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that I had to spell it out for you?  I thought the context made it obvious.  Oh well....

[lil mike]

One signing statement later and countless disclaimers before and since, and you're still sitting in that Circle Jerk of Attribution™?

Gawd...that lilDick must be sore...

Here's some [http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/obama_to_basically_ignore_congress_terrorists-in-military-custody_mandate.php]lube:[/url]

The President still requested it.  I love the way you feel you must dodge that issue!

[Howey]

My point was that Congress was not in recess.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that I had to spell it out for you?  I thought the context made it obvious.  Oh well....

So the answer is "a"?

When I was a kid, "recess" meant you didn't work. You played. 

[Howey]

My point was that Congress was not in recess.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that I had to spell it out for you?  I thought the context made it obvious.  Oh well....

Here's someone with a lot more brains than you commenting on this topic:

ON Wednesday President Obama, using his power to make recess appointments, named Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A few hours later, he used the same power to appoint three new members to the National Labor Relations Board, acting to overcome unprecedented Senate encroachment on his duty to appoint executive officials. The president’s right to do so is clearly stated in the Constitution: the recess appointments clause empowers him 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.”

However, since the twilight years of the George W. Bush administration, the Senate has tried to nullify this power by holding “pro forma” sessions every three days, during what no one doubts would otherwise be an extended recess. In these sham sessions, manifestly serving only to circumvent the recess appointment safety valve, a lone senator gavels the Senate to order, usually for just a few minutes; senators even agree beforehand that no business will be conducted.

It is this transparently obstructionist tactic to which President Obama said “enough,” striking a badly needed blow for checks and balances with strong support both from the text and the original purpose of the recess appointment clause.

Its aims, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 67, included facilitating appointments “necessary for the public service to fill without delay.” Although the main concern in 1789 involved difficulties of travel that kept a recessed Senate from acting swiftly, the broad imperative retains modern relevance, even when the Senate engineers its own unavailability.

Past practice also points the way. Presidents have long claimed, attorneys general have long affirmed and the Senate has long acquiesced to the president’s authority to make recess appointments during extended breaks within a Senate session. In 1905, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that “recess” referred to periods when, “because of its absence,” the Senate could not “participate as a body in making appointments” — a definition that precludes treating pro forma sessions as true breaks in an extended recess.

Since 1867, 12 presidents have made more than 285 such appointments, without constitutional objection by the Senate. And attorneys general going back to Harry M. Daugherty in 1921 have held that the Constitution authorizes such appointments.
 
This does not free the president to make recess appointments whenever the Senate breaks for lunch or takes routine weekend vacations that conceal no objective scheme to frustrate presidential appointments. Without limits on both sides, he could bypass the Senate’s “advice and consent” role by routinely recess-appointing controversial nominees.

These limits mean the president can resort to recess appointments of this kind only in instances of transparent and intolerable burdens on his authority. Article II charges him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”; this duty, combined with appointment and recess-appointment powers, requires an irreducible minimum of presidential authority to appoint officials when the appointments are essential to execute duly enacted statutes.

In this case, the administration’s focus on the gimmicky nature of pro forma sessions is best understood as one among several factors that combine to present unconstitutional interference with the president’s irreducible power and duty.

So I guess it's not the President who's not following the intent of the Constitution?

[lil mike]

Here's someone with a lot more brains than you commenting on this topic:
 

So I guess it's not the President who's not following the intent of the Constitution?

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do, but as a constitutional scholar, he's very much of the school of the "living" constitution.  Or, the constitution only means what we want it to mean when we want it to mean that.

If we accept Tribe's interpretation, that means the President not longer needs Senate approval for appointments.  Be careful what you wish for...

As for me, I'll go by the document that Tribe is bored with:  "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."

[Howey]

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do, but as a constitutional scholar, he's very much of the school of the "living" constitution.  Or, the constitution only means what we want it to mean when we want it to mean that.

If we accept Tribe's interpretation, that means the President not longer needs Senate approval for appointments.  Be careful what you wish for...

As for me, I'll go by the document that Tribe is bored with:  "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."

So in your literal land if one Republican shows up and wipes his ass, that's a session? Nah. I'd find your reasoning compelling if they showed up and actually do something...you know, like Nancy and all those dems who showed up to, ya know, actually fucking work! did, until then Obama did the right thing. Call/contact your republican comrades and tell them to start acting like fucking adults and this shit will stop. k?

[Howey]

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do

Dude...lately Iceman's got more brains than you.

[ekg]

I don't doubt Tribe has more brains than I do, but as a constitutional scholar, he's very much of the school of the "living" constitution.  Or, the constitution only means what we want it to mean when we want it to mean that.

If we accept Tribe's interpretation, that means the President not longer needs Senate approval for appointments.  Be careful what you wish for...

As for me, I'll go by the document that Tribe is bored with:  "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."

I love this.. this 'lving document' thing you've decided is a new 'insult'.. HA!

guess you're one of those  people who don't think women should be able to vote and blacks are only three-fifths of a white man..huh

the fact that it's been 'interpreted' by thousands of TPTB since it's inception proves it's a 'living document', if it wasn't.. there'd be no need to 'interpret' anything..

but you go on with your newly found libertarian pov..

[Howey]

but you go on with your newly found libertarian pov..

I'm sure he also thinks the Civil Rights Act wasn't needed back then too. My recent realizaton that libertarians are card-carrying racists led by Ron Paul is disturbing. I never would have thought that keeping government out of one's life included authorizing hate.

[lil mike]

I love this.. this 'lving document' thing you've decided is a new 'insult'.. HA!

guess you're one of those  people who don't think women should be able to vote and blacks are only three-fifths of a white man..huh

the fact that it's been 'interpreted' by thousands of TPTB since it's inception proves it's a 'living document', if it wasn't.. there'd be no need to 'interpret' anything..

but you go on with your newly found libertarian pov..

This is why your credibility has gone downhill so much the past few years.  The issue was recess appointments and if these appointments were constitutional since the Congress was not in fact in "recess."  I guess that payroll holiday extension never happened then since it was voted on December 23rd...

But anyway, that was the issue and what is your response?  That I'm one "of those  people who don't think women should be able to vote and blacks are only three-fifths of a white man..."

There was a time when I actually had to research a response to your posts.  Now it's all name calling and blather.  Your posts have dropped down to Howey levels of discourse.

It makes it so easy for me, but it's a little sad too.

[Howey]

name calling.

Howey levels of discourse.

Considering the consistency with which I've handed your ass to you on a platter lately, that should be considered a compliment.

\It makes it so easy for me, but it's a little sad too.

blather.

Meanwhile, back on the side of sanity. The irony of this statement, and/or self-refudiation (thanks Sarah!) is hilarious!

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

hahhahahhaha! If you had been in Washington the day he made the recess appointments you could have done it then! Stupid Republican cunt = One word.

[Howey]

The ban was entirely legal, just not constitutional. 

Nah...another lie!

The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

more...

The Justice official who wrote the opinion, Seitz, heads the department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is empowered to provide binding legal opinions to the executive branch.

Her new memo cites a Justice Department legal opinion from President George W. Bush's Republican administration in justifying Obama's recent appointments. The Bush administration opinion from 2004 says that a recess during a session of the Senate can meet constitutional requirements for permitting the president to make recess appointments as long as the recess is of sufficient length. Seitz noted that the last five presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of 14 days or less.