Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A federal appeals court has found that once again Presiend Obama has violated the constitution when he appointed a bunch of unio

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FirstBubba
    replied
    Here's the "sad" reality.
    "Dirty" Harry Reid (D-NV) started the "pro forma" tactic to keep Dubya from making "recess" appointments. So, Dubya DIDN'T make "recess" appointments.
    Along comes BHO!
    In his standard, backroom, after dark ways, "knowing" the Senate was in session, albeit "pro forma", decides "THAT" doesn't count and makes the appointment anyway!
    The "sad" part? His own party was the one holding the "pro forma" sessions!
    ...and the ENTIRE purpose of "pro forma" sessions is to keep a sitting president from making "recess appointments"!
    I suppose our "Constitutional Scholar" has a problem with his "oath" to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States?

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Sorry, I meant to type "...will be a costly one..."

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    The president's response to the tactic will a costly one for the executive branch in terms of power if the decision is upheld on appeal.
    He and all future presidents will have lost the recess appointment power as we now know it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoski
    replied
    Yes I know, the point is, 99 Senators were on recess, one was left to man the gavel.
    Still a pretty childish tactic.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    It seems the president was testing the constitutional limits on his power, to the point where the court had to define "recess" to mean only when the Senate was in actual recess between sessions. Not just every time the Senators stepped out of the Capitol.

    They ruled that it would destroy the checks and balances to give the president power to make recess appointments "...at any time he pleases, whether the time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoski
    replied
    99explorer,
    And likewise, no Senate has ever kept a lone Senator posted in the chamber solely so a President couldn't make appointments.
    Pretty childish way of running an opposition party in my view.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Other presidents have made recess appointments. The Obama kicker was to make the appointments when most of the Senate was away but not actually in recess, and they were conducting abbreviated sessions every day precisely so Obama could not make a recess appointment.
    In typical Obama style, he did it anyway in defiance of Congress. No president had ever tried that one before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ontario Honker Hunter
    replied
    If Mitt Romney didn't receive any campaign contributions from labor unions he'd probably be the only candidate from any party in the last hundred years who refused it.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1ojolsen
    replied
    Dang, proforma awareness nabbed him. 2nd amendment is next...

    Leave a comment:


  • WA Mtnhunter
    replied
    Best bumper sticker I have seen said "Buck Ofama".

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Devine
    replied
    Didn't most unions support Obama, during both his President campaigns? Appointing union members is just a little pay back.
    Jolsen, does that make it right because George Bush and George Washington allegedly did recess appointments muliple times?

    Leave a comment:


  • FirstBubba
    replied
    That would be "Dirty" Harry Reid (D-NV).

    "Hoisted on his own petard!"

    Seems Obabble "knew" about the "pro forma" sessions, decided (on his own) they didn't count and made the appointments anyway! Constitutional professor my left hind leg!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoski
    replied
    The appointments made were invalidated because one of the parties kept a Senator in the chamber to rap the gavel to an audience of zero to technically keep the Senate in session. I wonder which party.
    Did someone above mention ethics or morality?

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    It is possible that this decision could also invalidate every NLRB ruling for the past year, most of which had a pro-labor slant because of its liberal make-up.

    The NLRB is supposed to be an independent quasi-judicial body that reviews unfair labor practices by both management and labor unions.
    It sued Boeing for attempting to open a non-union factory in South Carolina until Boeing agreed to expand its operations in the pro-labor Puget Sound area.

    Leave a comment:


  • hengst
    replied
    10jol..The way Obama made his has yet to be done for the past 80 yrs. A recess appt is not an inter-recess appt. He did some sneaky crap and got caught. You are ill informed

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X