AS SUPPORTED BY
Good god almighty, no it wasn’t. I cited several experts in the law who decided against it. Unless “universal” includes “only the universe of the Supreme Court,” with no constitutional experts existing outside that universe.
If that’s the best you’ve got, then I will take it as read that you’ve conceded the point. Because that was hardly a naked power grab, but a case where, in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling, the Constitutionality of recess appointments under that circumstance was debatable either way. It wasn’t a “never in the history of the Republic has a President made recess appointments when Congress had closed up shop for a couple of weeks” sort of deal; in fact, Presidents as recent as GWB had done just that. It was a technical question of whether it was really a recess or not when Congress had gone home, but had left someone behind to technically keep Congress in session.
I meant unanimous, not universal. In any case, the legal opinion of the nine Justices is all that matters. They, to a person, supported the First Amendment, the Obama administration argued against it.
Would you like more examples? There are plenty.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. When did the practice of “leaving someone behind to keep Congress in session” start?
As to whether the Senate is in session, it was not much of a technical question. It is right there in the Constitution that the Senate cannot recess more than 3 days without the consent of the House (and vice versa). Damn obvious. Plain, unambiguous language.
The court ruled that:
- The Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that it could transact business under its rules.
- That the Senate did, in fact, pass legislation by unanimous consent during one of these pro forma sessions on December 23, 2011 mere days prior to Obama making his unconstitutional appointments to the NLRB on January 4, 2012. and…
- "Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments. "
Harry Reid was the first to use pro forma sessions to block nominations during the presidency of GW Bush. Other had previously threatened to do so, but none actually carried through until Reid.
12 days (between 12/23 and 1/4) > 3 days. And you can’t pass legislation without a quorum for doing so. But at some point during those 12 days, such quorums didn’t happen.
So it still seems to come back to that question, is the Senate in session when it says it is, even in the absence of a quorum for doing business?
Maybe the Supremes gussied it up to look like something different, but just looking at your summary, that’s what it seems to come back to.
Legally speaking, yes. But until they rule, it’s perfectly legit to have an opposing viewpoint to the one they haven’t voiced yet.
This is totally false.
Yes.
Nah, Reagan was the worst of those.
What?
Don’t tell me you didn’t know!
Riley v. California. The Administration was on the losing side, 9-0.
So was Obama governor of California when Riley was arrested, or just when the case was decided in the Supreme Court?
Or are you now casting the net so wide that in any case in which the Justice Department under Obama files an amicus curiae brief and the case is decided the other way, you’ll consider that evidence of Obama’s executive overreach? Because get down with your bad self.
Where did I mention executive overreach?
Shouldn’t Mr. Constitutional Scholar be just a little more familiar with the Constitution than he seems to be? Even the two Justices he appointed are ruling against him, on multiple occasions.
I know that President Obama isn’t fond of the 1st Amendment, but this argument against the 4th Amendment is troubling, as well.
Perhaps you’re unaware we’re in a conversation, and that you’ve beeen replying over and over to people in ways that imply executive overreach, and that you’ve not objected to that. Fine. If you don’t think he’s engaging in executive overreach, dandy.
No–and for all I know, neither should you be. As long as you don’t practice law, hold public office, or vote, your level of familiarity with the constitution is perfectly appropriate. Obama is perfectly familiar with the constitution, and none of the cases you’ve offered offer any evidence to the contrary; instead, they offer evidence that you’re not nearly as familiar with our governmental system as you’d like to be.
Cute.
Perhaps you inferred it, instead.
Oh, I’m sure he’s somewhat familiar with it, but he appears to disagree with a lot of it. His attacks, both the rhetorical ones, and in actual filings with the Supreme Court, against the freedom of speech, association, and religion, along with his arguments against the 4th Amendment, are appalling.
Unless you think that the police should be able to search every single file on your cellphone, without a warrant.
nm
.
The SCOTUS ruled that the Senate is in session when it says it is, assuming it could conduct business under its rules. There is no requirement that it does conduct business.
Hypothetically, suppose the Senate amended its rules to state that no business can be conducted over the Christmas break from December 15 to January 5. In that circumstance, according to the SCOTUS ruling in Canning, the Senate would not be in session for the purposes of the Recess Appointment Clause even if the Senate conducted pro forma sessions.
And you can pass legislation via unanimous consent without a quorum if no member present raises a Point of Order. Under the rules of the Senate a quorum is always presumed to be present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise.
One party did not support it, but the vast majority of Americans did…which is a small part of why the pubs keep getting called out on being obstructionist.
(if memory serves it was something like 70% wanted some form of universal health care.)
Currently, only 46% have a favorable view of the ACA. Why should we continue a policy that less than half of the voters support?
Are the Democrats in Congress obstructionist when they don’t vote for repeal?
Some people who don’t approve of the ACA don’t approve it because it doesn’t go far enough.
They always seem to forget that part.
For example, I’m a liberal who thinks the country’s on the wrong path and unhappy with the ACA.
That’s because the country is bring brought down by conservatives and the government and its protections are being stripped by the GOP. We are on the wrong path, we need to strengthen and increase regulations over business, especially Wall Street, and jail the assholes who bled the country dry during the recession. I’m also mad because the ACA is what it is and isn’t universal single payer health care, I want every American to pay a tax and be afforded great health care, and for health insurance companies to go the way of the pony express
So yeah, I’m part of that 54% of the country who have a negative view of the ACA. But ask me if I want to get rid of it and replace it with the nothing that the GOP has offered and I’ll answer an emphatic NO!