posted January 06, 2012 10:49 PM            

It's the US Senate. It's not the president who "gives advice and consent" to presidential appointments.

posted January 07, 2012 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
The Constitution is very clear about who confirms presidential appointments to the Executive Branch.

It's the US Senate. It's not the president who "gives advice and consent" to presidential appointments.

[b]advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/advice_and_consent.htm [/B]

---

George Orwell is becoming so true at this point in History. What is scary is the saying that "A people get a leader they deserve"

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

posted January 07, 2012 11:38 AM            

Well Ami, I agree.

Some good may yet come from electing O'Bomber and his cast of Socialist clowns in the Congress.

He's managed to wake a hell of a lot of people up. Far more Americans are paying attention to what's going on. For the most part, they don't like what they're seeing.

Apparently, O'Bomber has decided to take the advice of some loony-tunes leftists and "act like a dictator".

Ed Shulz wants Obama to act like a dictator
June 16, 2010
Breaking News

MSNBC’s Ed Shultz would like to see Obama “act like a dictator.” Can you imagine anyone on MSNBC saying the same for President Bush? These liberal talking heads want Obama to strengthen the executive branch to ridiculous levels. How much lower can MSNBC and Ed Shultz plummet than advocating for Obama to act like a dictator. It is obvious that Obama’s incompetence is showing through as the liberal talking heads are starting to get antsy.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/ed-shulz-wants-obama-to-act-like-a-dictator/

La Raza Members Beg Obama to Become Dictator
Eric Ingemunson
July 28th, 2011

President Obama’s speech to La Raza this week, in which he said he was tempted to change laws on his own, drew criticism from those who are concerned about the rapid accumulation of power in the executive branch that’s occurred in the last three years. The discussion among conservatives whether Obama was serious, joking, or half-joking overshadowed the clear response La Raza members gave him—they begged him to become a dictator.

“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own,” the president said while discussing laws against illegal immigration. He paused.

After a slow applause, the La Raza audience began a full-throated cheer.

“And believe me, right now dealing with Congress,” Obama started to say before being interrupted by chants.

“Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can!” the audience shouted, urging Obama to become, in essence, a dictator.....
http://www.redcounty.com/content/la-raza-members-beg-obama-become-dictator

In case anyone doesn't remember who La Raza is...La Raza (The Race)... is a bunch of latino racists who want to take over the American South West and either cede it back to Mexico or start a new country.

posted January 07, 2012 11:47 AM            

Key Republican Senators are bracing for legislative battles and Constitutional challenges to President Barack Obama’s unprecedented end-run around Congress to install several controversial political appointees.

Obama announced the decision Wednesday to make the so-called recess appointments -- even though the Senate is not in recess -- putting Richard Cordray in charge of a contentious new consumer protection agency and also naming three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board​ (NLRB) – Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terence F. Flynn.

“Business as we know it in the Senate is over for this administration in terms of accomplishing anything legislatively or finding any cooperation from this side of the aisle,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R. –Wyo.). “He has poisoned the well.”

“Apparently, advise and consent called for in the Constitution doesn’t apply to this Chicago-style politician. He’s more interested in rewarding his friends than living under the law Americans need to abide by,” Barrasso said.

The Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments, but the controversy in this case is whether or not the Senate is in recess.

“I believe it’s an abuse of power. Now he is saying he’s above the law -- the law doesn’t apply to him,” Barrasso said.

Republicans have kept the Congress in a pro forma session, gaveling in for a few minutes of official business every three days. It’s a tactic that was used by Democrats during the Bush administration to block recess appointments. Additionally, Obama’s own Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court in 2010 that Congress is not in recess unless it’s absent for more than three days.

Republicans say they are frustrated because Obama did not nominate the NLRB picks until last month -- just two days before the Christmas holiday -- allowing no time for the Senate to hold hearings.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have stalled the confirmation of the lone Republican nominee for the labor board, Brian Hayes, since July 2009.

Another contentious factor in Obama’s maneuver, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires that the new director be confirmed by the Senate, so Cordray’s appointment puts the agency’s legal authority in limbo.

“I don’t think he has the full authority to run this agency,” said J.W. Verrett, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University and a senior scholar at the Mercatus Center.

“The president’s decision is a purely political one, and not about consumer protection,” Verrett said. “In fact, he’s sacrificed consumer protection. He’s more interested in being tough on Congress than being tough on predatory lenders.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R. –Utah), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said these actions were not ordinary recess appointments but “egregious and inexcusable” acts of a president who thinks he’s above the law.

“As a matter of raw political force, can he do it? He just did,” Lee said.

“I think the president wanted to pick a really big fight, and he has surely chosen one,” Lee said. “This is a direct affront to the American people and the constitutional system of government that we have.”

Republicans are hesitant to give away their game plan on how they will respond to Obama’s move, but Lee suggested that Congress could withhold the salaries for the new federal appointees.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.) said Obama “upped the ante” and set “a terrible precedent that could allow any future president to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress.”

“This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments,” McConnell said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R. –Utah) said Obama made the appointments to placate his “big labor allies,” but that it might not be enough to save him come Election Day.

“The president put his own political future and the radical views of his far-left base ahead of constitutional government. The president will have to answer to the American people for this power grab," Hatch said.

Vincent Vernuccio, a labor policy lawyer with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the NLRB appointees are a gift to Obama’s labor backers, and that Griffin comes to the board directly from a labor union.

“The vacancies on the Board have occurred because Obama has insisted on nominating pro-union ideologues too controversial to pass Senate confirmation,” Vernuccio said.

Richard Trumka​, president of the AFL-CIO, congratulated Obama on overcoming what he called “Republican obstructionists.”

posted January 07, 2012 04:36 PM            

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

posted January 07, 2012 08:18 PM            

Yes acoustic, I know the leftist mantra better than leftists know it.

Leftist 101

Whenever someone disagrees with a leftist, call them a "right wing, fascist, fundamentalist homophobe.

The Constitution says nothing about "signing statements"...which by the way, O'Bomber himself uses.

However, the Constitution makes it very clear that the "advice and consent" authority over presidential appointments belongs to the US Senate.

It's amazing Ami how much support O'Bomber has lost among every one of his support groups.

posted January 08, 2012 08:06 AM            

The future of America depends on electing a new president in 2012, and the best asset for any potential challenger is Barack Obama. His obtuse sense of self-worth will be a shrewd candidate's greatest advantage.

Obama believes that he is a spectacular success, almost godlike in his judgment. All his policies are not only correct, but manifestations of the transcendent, prescient leader he knows himself to be.

He will run, fast and furious, from his record -- but not because it shows him to be less than the greatest leader ever, except for possibly Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln...and even then, only "possibly."

As a people, we simply do not have the intelligence to understand the brilliance of his ways and the nuance of his success or how lucky we are to have him. Perhaps we are too soft and lazy; perhaps we've reached the point where we've made enough money or are clinging too bitterly to our guns and religion, fearful of a man who looks different from us.

He is compelled to campaign decisively and divisively, with decided derision against anyone who dares to oppose. He does not want to play the race card, early and often, against all who disagree -- but he will.

He does not want to unfairly smear his opponent, his opponent's family, and everyone his opponent ever cared about, or who has ever cared about his opponent -- but he will.

He does not want to lie, falsify facts, or make wonders up wholesale, in support of whatever he says -- but he will.

He does not want to cheat, using community organizations to manufacture votes, or campaign illegally on the public dime, or turn a blind eye toward outright electoral fraud -- but he will.

If only we had loved him enough and passed that bill "now," as he asked. Alas, it's too late. He can't wait. If only we were worthy of his leadership, worthy of him, he wouldn't have to do these things. We had our chance. He graciously gave everyone who disagreed with him the opportunity to do as they were told.

It's our fault. He never wanted this, but now he has no choice. It is beyond his control. We made our bed; now we have to lie in it.

How else can he triumph, win the future, and transform the nation, in unselfish service, to an ungrateful, ignorant populace?

With apologies to Don Mclean and Vincent van Gogh, "I could have told you, Barack, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."

Is it any wonder that Michelle was never proud of us? Never mind -- throw some arugula on the Bar-b. No, that might create too much CO2. Is it time for another vacation? How about a visit to Rio or Bali or Costa del Sol? She's been there and done that...well, she'll find a venue worthy of her presence. Little people are always so nice to the ones they've been waiting for.

This presidential election will be a street fight. It will be bloody; it will be vile. Anyone who challenges Barack Obama needs to understand that the man and his minions will lie, cheat, and utilize any underhanded trick available to win four more years of public-funded golf, vacations, and Air Force One for himself, and the little 757 for the perennially prickly, and finally proud, Michelle, his belle.

This is the most important presidential election since Ronald Reagan challenged the first Barack Obama in 1980. It is about direction, priorities, and who we are as a nation. For while four more years of this president will not destroy America, it will certainly destroy many of its citizens.

Fortunately, there is a path to victory -- over this worst of all presidents, the man we can all see right through, the most transparent president in history -- and it runs through him.

The main issue in this election is Barack Obama -- his policies, the decisions he has made, the people he has consorted with, his nominees, and the economic destruction he has wrought upon the nation.

His un-stimulating stimulus, stimulating only the pocketbooks of backers of Barack, was an unmitigated failure. It actually made matters worse, taking a recession and prolonging it, while bringing the nation to its knees and to the brink of hopelessness.

Yet he says he saved us from depression.

"He kept us out of war" was what Woodrow Wilson campaigned on in 1916. Of course, by 1917, America was embroiled in World War I.

Expect a depression in Obama's second term, because his idea of halting the slide is to do the same thing he did before, except half as large. "Pass the bill now," he said, because even though it made things worse the first time around, this time's the charm.

Barack Obama's war on fossil fuels has been a pyrrhic victory, shutting down drilling in the Gulf, and anywhere else, except on private land, beyond his control...well, maybe next term. It will take 10 years for the oil economy to recover to where it was before he ascended to the presidency.

A second term, for this liberal Luddite, will see tripled electric bills and gasoline over $10 a gallon. But then, isn't that what he told us he wanted?

His recess appointment-packed NLRB has proceeded with a program of forced unionization, because unions provide more money to his campaign than anyone, except for maybe crony capitalists.

The EPA has prosecuted a war on industry, regardless of the cost in dollars or jobs, seeking to shut down coal-fired electrical generation and all manufacturing that releases anything into the environment. Rabid environmentalists are also big supporters of the president.

After almost four years of experiencing the abject misery Obama has put the country through, anyone still willing to vote for this dim-witted, worse-than-dismal president, deserves the four years of wretchedness that will follow should he win re-election.

Make no mistake: Barack Obama, unencumbered by the perpetual campaign of these last three years, will turn Ronald Reagan's "morning in America" into four years of "mourning in America" as he strives to remake the nation in his own image, because he can think of nothing more perfect.

An embattled monarch without control of the House or the Senate, he will not govern; he will rule. Executive orders and regulatory fiat, things he found so useful in his first term, will be the order of the day in his second. The nation will tremble before his wrath. Our freedoms and prosperity will be sacrificed to his outsized ego and his dream of a pre-eminent place in the history books.

There will be nothing to stop his transformation of the nation. Since we are not worthy of him, he will try to destroy us -- not maliciously, but for our own good. The second coming of Obama will ruin people, families, and other nations as well.

Yet America is bigger than any one man, despite what Barack Obama thinks. A new president will still be capable of undoing this president's assault on our future. The rebuilding may take decades, and it will not be pretty, but it will take place.

America, a land seemingly blessed by God, has too much going for it to be destroyed by someone as small as Barack Obama, a man once described by minions, sycophants, and himself as godlike.

In the coming election, the greatest advantage we will have to actually win the future is Barack Obama.

Because, in the end, there is a big difference between God and Barack Obama: God does not want to be Barack Obama.

posted January 08, 2012 01:46 PM            

quote:

---

Leftist 101

Whenever someone disagrees with a leftist, call them a "right wing, fascist, fundamentalist homophobe.

---

So you're saying that because you saw a lot of people with a concern over power grabs from President Bush that it was really just a mantra. That seems rather diminishing of the rather legitimate concern people had. I remember defending some people from your belief that things were above board with regard to the privacy of private citizens under Bush's watch. You spoke as if you knew something, but in actuality, you couldn't prove a thing (just like those who were making claims of breeches of privacy). No, I don't think minimizing concerns into a claim that it's a "mantra" is going to be sufficient.

quote:

---

The Constitution says nothing about "signing statements"...which by the way, O'Bomber himself uses.

---

I know this. George W. made extensive use of them during his time. Obama's total as of June 4, 2011 is just 18. 18 total over 2.5 years, is equivalent to a couple more than Bush's yearly average of 16.

quote:

---

However, the Constitution makes it very clear that the "advice and consent" authority over presidential appointments belongs to the US Senate.

---

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. ~ Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

I'll reiterate that recess appointments have happened FAR LESS under Obama than any previous modern President.

posted January 08, 2012 02:00 PM            

The US Senate is in session every 3rd day. Even O'Bomber's own Justice Dept argued in front of the Supreme Court that a "recess" required more than three (consecutive) days.

All of which means O'Bomber is acting outside his Executive Authority when he appointed the 4 people he appointed without Senate confirmation.

Second, I don't give a rat's ass how many signing statements Bush signed vs how many O'Bomber signed. Don't pi$$ and moan about Bush when your little Marxist Messiah is doing the same thing. Best..for you..to not attempt using that in an argument at all.

Third, it was you who brought up fascism here acoustic.

"How quickly you seem to forget the charges of fascism against George Bush"...acoustic

posted January 08, 2012 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

First, there is no recess in the US Senate...so O'Bomber could not do a recess appointment.

---

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

posted January 08, 2012 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
As I explained earlier in this thread, it's debatable whether the court will agree that Congress is in session when so many of its members are out. In court, Obama's idea of what constitutes a session may be held as valid.

Yes, I brought up Fascism with regard to Bush. You don't seem to recall all the issues people had with Bush. You want to talk about a President being cocky, Obama's proven to be less so on multiple fronts throughout his tenure. Just as I'm more conservative than you in personality, so is Obama more conservative than Bush.

---

Whaaaaaa

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

posted January 09, 2012 12:31 AM            

But then, leftists are always talking about fascism...without a clue as to what fascism is.

Nevertheless, you're the one who used fascism on this thread and attempted to tie it to Bush.

Leftist 101...taught at a university near you.

Hell, I could teach that course better than leftists.

All those who can remember this line get an A. Just like at Berkley!

posted January 09, 2012 08:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Yes, there was talk of fascism in the air...from the brain dead babbling loons of the left.

But then, leftists are always talking about fascism...without a clue as to what fascism is.

Nevertheless, you're the one who used fascism on this thread and attempted to tie it to Bush.

Leftist 101...taught at a university near you.

Hell, I could teach that course better than leftists.

All those who can remember this line get an A. Just like at Berkley!

You're a "right wing, fundamentalist, homophobe and fascist Nazi racist".

---

I feel like a Yes man, but I couldn't be it to a better person.
You must have a stable Mars/ Moon to be able to put up with this Jwhop

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

posted January 09, 2012 09:50 AM            

quote:

---

But then, leftists are always talking about fascism...without a clue as to what fascism is.

---

It's so ironic when you say stuff like this. You throw around Socialism as if you know it is.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, you're the one who used fascism on this thread and attempted to tie it to Bush.

---

Yes, I did. Of course I brought it up, and of course it's with regard to what people charged the Presidency with when Bush was in office. I was illustrating a point you seem loathe to take, which is that people took far MORE issue with Bush during his time than they do Obama.

posted January 09, 2012 11:55 AM            

I'll leave the question of "stability" with that combination to you.

posted January 09, 2012 02:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Ami, my Moon is in 14* of Leo...and my Mars is in 21* of Aries...in the 6th House and the only planet below the horizon.

I'll leave the question of "stability" with that combination to you.

---

On stability, you pass

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

posted January 11, 2012 11:26 AM            

I don't know what hole in the ground you have your head crammed into..or what body orifice but this is patently untrue.

posted January 11, 2012 11:47 AM            

Last week, the President shredded yet another provision of the U.S. Constitution. He used an unconstitutional procedure to install Richard Cordray as head of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Richard Griffin, Sharon Block and Terence Flynn to be on the National Labor Relations Board​ (NLRB).

Obama installed them claiming his constitutional power to make recess appointments. Only problem is, the Senate isn’t in recess.

The President has ignored the clear words of the Constitution. As The Heritage Foundation’s Todd Gaziano wrote, “The Constitution, in Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house.” Congress has been in session conducting business every few days.

Gaziano further observes that the President’s power under Article II to make recess appointments “has been interpreted by scores of attorneys general and their designees in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for over 100 years to require an official, legal Senate recess of at least 10–25 days of duration.” The Senate is not even in a recess, therefore the President has abused his power.

posted January 11, 2012 12:09 PM            

quote:

---

I don't know what hole in the ground you have your head crammed into..or what body orifice but this is patently untrue.

---

It's not. You are mistaken. You do not have your finger on the pulse of politics in America.

posted January 11, 2012 12:38 PM            

The authority of the US Senate to APPROVE presidential appointees IS the legal and Constitutional issue.

posted January 11, 2012 01:00 PM            

Article II, Section 2 US Constitution...powers of the President