posted January 05, 2012 11:01 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 05, 2012 03:03 PM            

however the new NDAA which you conservatives think is okay gives the president powers i would not want even the most honest man to have.

posted January 05, 2012 03:43 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 05, 2012 04:15 PM            

Only exception...a recess appointment.

But, the US Senate IS in session and meets for some business every third day...even during the Christmas and New Years holidays.

This is an O'Bomber power grab. I suppose O'Bomber won't be satisfied until he's reduced the US to the status of a Banana Republic.

One last thing on this. demoscats control the US Senate and a majority there. If O'Bomber can't get his "appointments" confirmed or even brought to the Senate floor for a vote..then O'Bomber needs to talk to Senate Majority Leader Hairy Reed and stop blaming the Republican minority in the Senate.

posted January 05, 2012 04:18 PM            

B A N A N A S

posted January 05, 2012 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
O'Bomber does not have the Constitutional authority to by-pass the US Senate to make appointments in the Executive branch...without Senate Confirmation.

Only exception...a recess appointment.

But, the US Senate IS in session and meets for some business every third day...even during the Christmas and New Years holidays.

This is an O'Bomber power grab. I suppose O'Bomber won't be satisfied until he's reduced the US to the status of a Banana Republic.

One last thing on this. demoscats control the US Senate and a majority there. If O'Bomber can't get his "appointments" confirmed or even brought to the Senate floor for a vote..then O'Bomber needs to talk to Senate Majority Leader Hairy Reed and stop blaming the Republican minority in the Senate.

November can't come too soon for me!

---

I HOPE there are enough people who see it for what it is!

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 05, 2012 06:35 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 05, 2012 08:50 PM            

For the record, Obama has made far fewer recess appointments than his last two predecessor's, so tossing around the word "Dictator" is both too strong and ludicrous.

Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 of them were for full-time gigs. As of Wednesday, President Obama has made 32 recess appointments, all of them to full-time positions, according to the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/what-is- a-recess-appointment/2012/01/04/gIQAA4WCbP_blog.html

posted January 05, 2012 09:30 PM            

The appointments were Constitutionally legal... that`s the like or lump it part, yes?
The axe to grind is:
how long must the Senate be in recess before a president can make a recess appointment?

Anyhow , that`s how I understand the appointments and grief over them

posted January 05, 2012 10:27 PM            

When Bush appointed John Bolton during a real Senate recess, O'Bomber was outraged.

But Bush never made a recess appointment when the Senate was in pro forma session and still meeting for some business....as the Senate is now. Hairy Reed is the Senate Majority Leader. Hairy Reed controls the process there. One of the reasons the Senate is in session every third day is to prevent O'Bomber from making recess appointments.

posted January 06, 2012 05:47 AM            

RUSH: All right, some people in the e-mail have taken exception with my description of Obama as "lawless" and acting outside the Constitution. Let me share with you a quote, and this is from a video. It might have been from yesterday out in Ohio, but it's within the past couple days. Obama said, "When Congress refuses to act -- and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk -- then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them." He got applause. "I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. I'm not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we elected to serve. Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle class Americans. We're not gonna let that happen."

Now, the Founding Fathers said this is exactly what's supposed to happen! It's called "the separation of powers," and it's to make sure that things like this do not happen, that an all-powerful executive does not run roughshod over the government. But President Obama has just said: Because the Congress won't do what I want them to do I'm gonna do it myself. That is extraconstitutional! That is not the way this government was set up. It was not the idea of the Founders. That's acting outside the Constitution, and there's no question about it -- and the Obama campaign is claiming he's doing all these recess appointments and things like this "to help the economy." Reuters again: "Hammering populist themes that show him to be a champion of the middle class, aides say the president will keep taking steps to show voters he'll make moves on his own to help the economy if Congress refuses to act."

posted January 06, 2012 05:50 AM            

On his radio show last night, Mark Levin said that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board and a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without going through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process.

“We have a constitutional crisis," Levin said. "It is in fact a constitutional crisis."

"The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,” Levin said.

posted January 06, 2012 06:17 AM            

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

If Barack Obama wins in 2012, America is headed for something worse than a failing European-style socialist state, top-rated radio host Michael Savage said on his nationally syndicated show today.

“I have to tell you that if this man, God forbid, is the next president of the United States, we’re going to be living in something along the lines of – people say Europe. I don’t believe it’s going to be like Europe – I think it will be closer to Chavez’s South American dictatorship,” he told his “Savage Nation” audience.

Recalling his background as the son of an immigrant from Russia, who has been around awhile and seen a number of administrations, Savage said that if he had one message to leave, it would be a warning about what he fears is on the horizon.

“This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history,” he declared.

“It’s not politics as usual. It’s not just Democrats versus Republicans,” Savage said.

Obama, he said, is “not a Democrat,” noting the president’s history of ties to Marxists and other radicals documented in his book “Trickle Up Poverty.”

“Obama has a long history of being at odds with American values and with America itself and the core principles of this country.” Savage said.

Savage pointed to media as one of the areas in which “step by step, degree by degree, we’re losing our freedom.”

He cited a WND story by Aaron Klein about a non-profit journalism group funded by supporters of MoveOn.org and the ACLU that will supply news to NBC television affiliates.

“They don’t want government-sponsored opinions,” he said, “They only want government-sponsored “Pravda.’”

“Pravda,” which ironically means “truth” in Russian, he noted, was the official Communist Party newspaper in the old Soviet Union.

“That’s exactly what the government-media complex tells you on a daily basis – nothing but the government-media complex party line,” he said.

posted January 06, 2012 09:45 AM            

I can`t find anything definitive re the subject, any pointers folks ?

posted January 06, 2012 10:06 AM            

quote:

---

Democrats have used the same tactic that Republicans are using now.

Late in Republican George W. Bush's presidency, the Democratic-led Senate began to punctuate its breaks with non-business sessions, preventing Bush from making any recess appointments from November 2007 through the end of his term, according to a December report by Congress' nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

That report said the Department of Justice has offered varying views over the years about how long lawmakers must be away before a recess appointment may be made. But in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, a Justice brief implied that a president can make a recess appointment if a break by the Senate lasts more than three days, the CRS report said.

That brief cited a clause in the Constitution that forbids either chamber of Congress from adjourning for more than three days unless the other chamber has voted to let them do so..

---

http://news.yahoo.com/recess-constitution-doesnt-specify-222641680.html
Seriously, is this simply another distraction that will drag on ?

posted January 06, 2012 11:37 AM            

Well, you see the Senate is meeting every 3rd day...which means there are only 2 days between meetings...and there would have to be 4 (more than 3) before O'Bomber could make a recess appointment.

posted January 06, 2012 12:10 PM            

quote:

---

There is one significant difference no one seems willing to notice here: the Senate is fine with the person. The Senate has been holding back the confirmation because they want the department changed.

---

The Dem's might have a majority in the senate, but so far that has been pretty useless. A super-majority is required for every freaking appointment/bill/amendment.

posted January 06, 2012 12:31 PM            

My motive is to understand the legal process.

quote:

---

Seriously, is this simply another distraction that will drag on ?

---

posted January 06, 2012 12:48 PM            

Most interesting times we live in!