Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Herr Obama, Heil!

Not only does he appoint some wacko Lefty to the Dodd-Frank Chair of BankCzar-ing, but three (!!) members of the NLRB.

Heil, Obama!!

None of the appointments are Constitutional on their face, of course.

17 comments:

Jim said...

None of the appointments are Constitutional on their face, of course.

Of, course, this is false.

Jim said...

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

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.

Dad29 said...

At least you know where to find the Constitution, unlike your Liar-in-Chief President

The House did not CONSENT to a Senate recess (also part of that quoted section.)

So the Senate is NOT in recess.

Anonymous said...

cnsnews.com/news/article/legal-scholars-skeptical-obama-s-so-called-recess-appointments-when-congress-wasn-t



There is a strong argument that the recess appointments were 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.

“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...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.”

neomom said...

I wonder if he lefties will remember how awesome this constutional boundary-pushings when a republican is sitting in the oval again?

Probably not.

Dad29 said...

You mean next January, of course.

There's NO question that the appointments are un-Constitutional.

Congress is NOT in recess, as the House never agreed to it.

Lawsuits to follow. All decisions made by the Financial Board, nor NLRB, will be subject to litigation.

neomom said...

Indeed they are unconstitutional, just more uncertainty for business now....

Don't you miss the media and celebrity screeching about the imperial President? Obama makes GWB look like a piker.

Jim said...

There's NO question that the appointments are un-Constitutional.

But actually there IS a question. Seen any Senators around Washington the past several weeks? The "in session" is a gimmick to keep the president from appointing qualified people to run federal departments. If the Repugs would allow a vote, this wouldn't be necessary.

The president has the power according to the US Constitution to make recess appointments. The Republican Congress is usurping that authority through a sham "session". Let the GOPers sue.

Anonymous said...

It's apparent that the usual suspects here did not read the cnsnews.com link.

neomom said...

And I'm sure Jim would have been just fine with GWB doing this... I don't think so.

The difference, is that we don't like it, regardless of the party in charge.

But it doesn't matter if there are any Senators in town, the House didn't approve a recess, and Prince Harry never asked for one.

Jim said...

The difference, is that we don't like it, regardless of the party in charge.

Yeah, I remember you screaming bloody murder when Bolton was appointed UN Ambassador.

I say, impeach Obama!

neomom said...

Um, the Senate was on a true Recess when Bolton was appointed. And... that was, you know, one. Obozo has had how many now? And don't say it is because of the Republicans. A bunch of these folks were too controversial even for the Democrats....

Jim said...

And... that was, you know, one.

Indeed. One of 171 recess appointments made by Bush. Versus 32 by Obama.

Dad29 said...

Gee. For four years, Obozo controlled the Senate.

Small wonder, Jimbo.

Jim said...

For four years, [Obama] controlled the Senate.

This is laughable and, of course, false.

If Obama, who has not yet been in office for THREE years, "controlled" the Senate, why are the number of his blocked nominations at record-breaking levels?

Democrats only "controlled" the Senate for a few months in 2009, AFTER Franken was sworn in in July and BEFORE Scott Brown was sworn in in February 2010. During those few months, Ted Kennedy died and the Senate was on Summer, Thanksgiving and Christmas break.

Obama and the Democratic-led Senate do NOT control the Senate without 60 votes, Dadio.

Dad29 said...

Oh, that's right.

He couldn't get the (D)'s to cooperate in the first two years.

*Snif*

Jim said...

Lame, Dadio. He could have gotten every D in the Senate to cooperate but there were only 60 Senators in the Democratic caucus for a couple of months. No one can accomplish their complete legislative agenda in a couple of months.

Pffft!

Even so, he accomplished the Stimulus, PPACA and Consumer Protection Act all with fewer than 60 Ds.