Then you merely suffer from some ignorance, and we are here to help. Trust us when we say … “Usurper in Chief” has been rally cry of the nutsy-Birthers since the get-go.
Since you didn’t answer the question I posted in #166, how can he usurp a power given to him by the Constitution to settle a disagreement between the Houses by declaring a recess. It may be rare, but no more a usurping of power than if Congress were to give a person a Letter of Marque during the bootlegging days.
I guess I can see it with effort. But if I were crafting a Birther message, I wouldn’t have used that term. Seems to me that if you believe that Obama isn’t a citizen, he didn’t so much usurp the office as much as he stole it. Or something else that would go to acquiring something to which one has zero right to have. “Usurp”, to me, implies more of taking more than one is entitled to. YMMV ::shrug::
I’ll trust you on all matters concerning the thoughts of Birthers. How’s that?
And a fearful price he has paid for it, too. Why, the strain has driven poor Jack…no, I can’t, it would be wrong, so very, very wrong…
Keep in mid that this whole thing came up in response to a poster saying that the Dems can run on Reps being anti-consumer. I was just showing that that message won’t be out there in isolation.
Merriam-Webster:
How many responses and magellan01 still refuses to say how exercising an obscure constitution preogative = usurping power?
Should we assume that your lack of an answer is your response?
Improperly formatted roll eyes back to you. The poll numbers, which have Congress diving from already low levels when the Republicans took over the House, are clear enough.
I think the public understands fights on ideological grounds, either side. But here the obstructionism is in getting a law implemented. It is not like they have any complaints about these nominees, besides that they exist. The debt ceiling fracas is another perfect example, where pro forma motions get turned into crises.
I’ve tried to follow this thread, but I can’t seem to. Can someone please explain to me how Obama makes a “recess” appointment when the Senate is in session? Is it that he feels that these pro forma sessions don’t count somehow? On what grounds? Is there a certain amount of business that must be conducted before it is a “session”?
The House wanted to adjourn. The Senate didn’t vote to adjourn because Republican senators wanted to keep themselves “in session” to block any recess appointments.
Article 2, §3 lets the President declare Congress adjourned when the houses disagree, though it’s not clear whether he bothered to invoke that power.
The argument is a combination of two factors: (1) the Senate is in recess because it is not doing any business and thus cannot advise and consent to the nominee and (2) the President has the authority and responsibility to execute the laws and the law requires a director be appointed - the Senate cannot abrogate this right be refusing to consider any and all nominees.
I’m sure that part of the argument in the inevitable court case will be that refusing to vote on any nominee while also remaining in pro-forma sessions infringes in the presidents authority both to appoint executive-branch officers and to enforce duly-passed laws.
Put another way - the Constitution does not define recess. If the president gets to decide what constitutes recess then the balance of powers and the ability to execute the laws remains. If the Congress gets to decide the definition of recess then the President has no recourse and no ability to execute the law in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.
Thank you for the compliment – although it’s my perception that my legal opinion is regarded as “valuable” far more often around here when it is consistent with the goals of the left, and regarded as a useless result of a biased partisan when it favors the goals of the right.
As to the biased partisan dig – it’s interesting that you excoriate me for my comment, but say nothing about the comment to which I am replying? Was that not also a partisan dig, or was that pure, noble truth?
How about the more basic idea that neither Congress nor the President can adopt a definition that falls outside the plain meaning of the words?
Congress cannot, in my view, claim to be “in session” when they conduct no business at all, and merely open and close the meeting by banging a gavel. There is assuredly some minimal level of “in session” that they could adopt, but this simply doesn’t qualify.
In my opinion.
Since the goals of the left are more often based on truth, justice and the American way, this is to be expected. 
But the present Republicans are being more obstructionist than anyone else in history. This isn’t a slander. It’s a fact.
According to your statement, everyone else in history is more inept than the current Republicans because they chose to allow government to function. I think more likely, McConnel is simply a more craven, vulgar being than ever occupied the Senate minority leader position. This, I expect, is because he appears to have been the result of scientific hybridization with a turtle.
And prior to that, when the Dems were in the minority, THEY were being the most obstructionist in history.
But you didn’t mind it then.
Or has this level of obstruction now in play crossed some sort of objective line?
Did the Dems more than double the previous level?
If you look at the trend, it has been going up for some time. But by some random chance it only goes up a huge amount during periods where Dems are in the presidency. Odd, that.
I’m also pretty sure this was pointed out to you in the last couple months.
To sum up: Some things are bigger than other things.
They were? I don’t recall that as being true-perhaps you could elaborate on this in a separate thread, while the rest of us discuss the current problem. Either something is wrong, or it isn’t, and(in my mind at least) saying, “Well yeah, but you guys did it too!” is an admission of guilt combined with a weak attempt to spread the blame.
All of life is determining where your personal lines are drawn. In this matter, where are yours drawn? If that line was crossed back when you think that Democrats crossed it by being somewhat obstructionist, then you should be even more upset that the Republicans have crossed it to an even greater degree, shouldn’t you?
I think that’s a valid way to look at it as well.
My basic position would be that the Constitution grants powers to certain parties, and within the bounds of reason it’s up to those parties to define the terms and mechanisms involved.
The power to advise and consent is given to the Senate so they can define what that means. They can require 60 votes, or even 100, if that’s what they want to do.
The power to recess appoint is given to the President and he can define what “recess” means, within the bounds of reason.
If either party defines their powers more broadly than the public likes then it is a political matter to be resolved in the next election. But neither party gets to define the powers granted to the other - the President can’t require the Senate to assent with a simple majority and the Senate can’t tell the President that they aren’t in recess when they clearly are.
I don’t think that the relative levels of obstruction have any bearing on the legal question, merely the political one.
No-one should be happy with the levels of obstructionism that have been going on since 2000 or so. It’s not good for either party that it keeps getting worse. How far does this go? At some point the attitude needs to be like that of a parent saying, “I don’t care who started this, it needs to stop!”
Of course what I don’t understand is why the Democrats don’t threaten Nuclear option like the Republicans did when the shoe was on the other foot. I mean I asked here once and was told that the Democrats are basically being spineless, but come on. It’s a strategy that was proven effective. Use it.
I know that our federal government was designed to move slowly, but the way things have been going lately has been ridiculous.