-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It is time for even the liberal sycophants to start standing up against Barack Obama’s transgressions. At CFIF, both I and Troy Senik have columns out today (here’s mine) explaining some of the lessons from Obama’s appalling, dangerous derailment of one of the most essential bulwarks of American constitutionalism, namely the separation of powers, with his dangerously illegal “recess appointments” yesterday.
To be blunt, I am expressly saying that Obama’s actions are illegitimate. He is a menace. Indeed, his actions are in a sense “seditious,” in the (Webster’s) definition of “incitement to resistance… against lawful authority.”
No, Barack Obama is NOT “lawful authority.” The Constitution is. And he has knowingly violated it, even by the testimony of his own solicitor general. On this front and many others, the man must be stopped. Period.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/05/obama-the-tyrant-must-be-stopp
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MS| 1.5.12 @ 12:28PM
Quin, I implore you to take a deeper look at this man's [non] eligibility to the office of president. There is Supreme Court precedent (Minor v Happersett) that defines the term 'natural born Citizen' as a person born to TWO citizen parents on native soil. The birth certificate is the less relevant piece of this puzzle. His place of birth is only part of the equation. The issue is, as it has always been (despite the efforts of some to muddy the waters), his British subject Kenyan father. Barack Obama is a dual citizen of the United States and Britain. He is not and could never be a natural born Citizen because of who his father is. His entire presidency is lawless. None of this seditious behavior should be a surprise considered he defrauded the American people from the very beginning. He knows his presidency is illegal.
Please, please, please. It is time for the conservative movement to take a fresh look at this, free from and unafraid of the ridicule of the corporate media. This man can be ousted by lawful means. There is a case in Georgia proceeding on the merits. Ten New Hampshire legislators have stood up into the breach to defend the Constitution.
The defense of liberty must be joined now!
WL| 1.5.12 @ 12:44PM
Some battlegrounds are losing fights MS.
I don't know if the man was born on Earth or Mars, but this isn't good ground for a political fight...
Despite what you might believe (and who knows if you are right or not)....the continued pursuit of this Kenyan stuff...won't help a thing.
MS| 1.5.12 @ 12:59PM
To the contrary, I think it is the best fight. They are extremely vulnerable and they know it, which is why they pull out the harshest Alinsky tactics on this issue. The ridicule and feint of strength belies incredible weakness.
Where do we stand if not here? The entire legitimacy of the government is at stake. If the man is not eligible, we no longer live under a Constitution because nothing the Congress sends to him can be lawfully signed.
This isn't "Kenyan stuff". It is the rule of law. We either fight for it now, or quite possibly lose it completely.
WL| 1.5.12 @ 5:52PM
Look, I understand your thinking...and I don't disagree that is is about "the rule of law." I just disagree totally on whether this issue is where we should put our efforts. General Lee made this mistake at Gettysburg. He couldn't resist the fight there and it did him in. This issue will do us in. That's just the way I see it.
MS| 1.6.12 @ 12:42AM
It's a fair point you make and we will agree to disagree. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts.
WinnieR| 1.6.12 @ 9:30AM
I happen to agree with you. Part of the reason we got into this mess is because too many lawmakers just ignore the rule of law for whatever policital reasons. And the masses have not been taught our laws they way they used to. A law? Oh, laws are meant to be broken - whenever it's convenient. A slippery slope.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.5.12 @ 6:14PM
What about his Social Security number? I've heard that it is a North East number, not one from Hawaii.
Check it out, willyou?
MS| 1.6.12 @ 12:45AM
Correct. The SS number he uses was assigned to a woman born in Connecticut born in the late 1890's. It fails the government's own e-verify database.
KennesawJack| 1.5.12 @ 12:31PM
Quin, take a look at the article on Drudge this morning about the DHS checkpoint at a Social Security office in Leesburg, Fl. These folks just keep pushing the envelope and nobody is pushing back. I think tough times are coming.
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 1:08PM
Article One, section Five of the Constitution -- the Adjournments Clause -- states:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days...
This presents a problem for Obama, who made 4 "recess" appointments yesterday even though the Senate is NOT actually in recess. The COTUS says the Senate cannot recess for more than 3 days without the House's permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity.
Furthermore, Frankendudd makes it SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES that the Director of the CFPB be CONFIRMED by the Senate.
Section 1066 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorised to perform the functions of the CFPB under the subtitle transferring authority to the CFPB from the other agencies “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011.”
Section 1011 provides: “The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
Since the position has never been filled, it is not technically "vacant" and, in fact, Frankendudd clearly states that the Secretary of the Treasury will "perform the functions of the CFPB Director" until the person nominated for the latter position is CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE. Thus, the "vacancy " clause is irrelevant.
Obama can no more recess appoint him than he could recess appoint Federal judges.
The reason that confirmation is MANDATORY is because the agency and Corday will not be subject to Congressional oversight. The CFPB will be under the Fed's watch. It is also self-funding, but can write its own regulations, which are laws...another constitutional violation. The agency is not answerable to Congress or voters, but rather to Ben Bernanke and the big banks.
The illegality of the appointment will call into question all of the agency's actions. Defence counsel will have a field day in the future. If Corday & Co. go after a payday loan outfit, for example, the company can get the action dismissed because Corday is not the lawful head of the agency.
In December, the Congressional Research Service said decades of congressional practise and DOJ opinions have backed the position that the Senate should be out of session for more than three days before the president can make a recess appointment. When Obama was in the Senate, Democrats held Bush to the three day minimum. In fact, it WAS the Democrats that created the "pro forma" rule.
You might wish to read the transcript from the New Process Steel vs. National Labor Relations Board oral arguments before the Supreme Court where then-acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal referenced the three-day minimum during which no recess appointment could be made and cited a Department of Justice brief issued in 1993 by Attorney General Janet Reno based on more than 100 years of precedent, rules, and tradition.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn't work why?
OBAMA'S SOLICITOR GENERAL MR. KATYAL: The -- the recess appointment power can work in -- in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And -- and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that -- that could -- that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
As a result, the Corday and NLRB recess appointments are unconstitutional.
Here's the Congressional Research Report from December:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSRepor.....h.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 1:09PM
Obama nominated the three NRLB nominees 2 weeks ago. There has been NO obstruction whatsoever.
Obamabots, I hope that you like the precedent. Imagine a future President Republican nominating Mark Levin for the Supreme Court and, two weeks later while Congress is off for the weekend, appointing him to the Court using the recess appointment clause in the COTUS, which would be completely unconstitutional.
I don't want to hear any whining from you assh@ts then. You have no regard for the COTUS. "The ends justify the means" is your entire life.
DRed| 1.5.12 @ 1:32PM
What does the constitution say if there's a dispute between houses of Congress over when to be in session?
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 1:36PM
They remain in session until both houses agree to adjourn. See Article I, Section 5.
The President can call Congress into a special session. He cannot decide when Congress is NOT in session. Separation of powers.
MS| 1.5.12 @ 1:39PM
We need only go right to the text of the 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.”
These vacancies did not HAPPEN DURING any recess. Even if the Senate was in recess, the vacancies happened weeks ago; they did not happen during the recess. No need to torture the language of the Constitution or look to the courts for precedent. It's very clear as the Constitution usually is.
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 1:58PM
MS, true, but the Vacancies clause is inapplicable to the CFPB. Under Frankendudd, the Secretary of the Treasury, Geithner, is the acting director of the CFPB until the President's nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Since this is a new position, there has been no vacancy.
MS| 1.5.12 @ 2:15PM
An excellent point, and thank you for validating my point. However, the position is technically vacant and has been since passage of the law (when the Senate was in session). Geithner doesn't fill the vacancy; he uses the authority granted to the CFPB until the vacancy is filled.
DRed| 1.5.12 @ 1:45PM
"The President can call Congress into a special session. He cannot decide when Congress is NOT in session." It would appear that the plain text of the constitution contradicts you.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States
MS| 1.5.12 @ 1:55PM
No it does not. I'm not suggesting these appointments are constitutional. They are blatantly illegal, but not just because the president has no authority to define when Congress is not in session.
It doesn't matter if the Senate was in recess in this case. Even if the Senate was in recess, it is irrelevant because the vacancies happened weeks ago; they did not HAPPEN DURING a recess. The question of recess itself is irrelevant in this case. The timing of the vacancy is what is controlling here. The question is, when did the vacancy occur?
Stated differently, if the vacancy happened during a recess, the president can make an appointment. If the vacancy did not happen during a recess, he cannot use the recess appointment power in any instance just to get his way. It is, of course, a strictly limited power related to vacancies that HAPPEN DURING a recess.
This is very simple, elegant language.
MS| 1.5.12 @ 1:57PM
In this case we need not even reach the question of whether or not the Senate was technically in recess.
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 2:01PM
Article I, Section 5:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
____________________
The last is the pertinent clause.
"he may, ON EXTRAORDINARY OCCASIONS, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;"
Did Obama call a Special Session of Congress? No.
MS| 1.5.12 @ 2:07PM
Correct; and even if he calls a joint session, I think (though I may not be correct) that each house of Congress must convene under parliamentary rule and vote on whether or not to accept the president's request to be called into session. If that is correct, the president's request is not binding.
George S| 1.5.12 @ 2:34PM
The plain text of A2:S3 says nothing about recess. It states a little-known tidbit that the president can dismiss the congress only if they (Congress) disagree on when to call it a day.
Did Obama adjourn Congress? No? Then Dear Leader broke the law.
DRed| 1.5.12 @ 2:52PM
Is Congress in session? The Senate claims they are, but they certainly aren't conducting any business. In addition, you could argue that the Senate itself violated its constitutional duties by refusing to even allow a vote on Rich Cordray until changes were made to an already valid law. One house of Congress doesn't get to nullify a law it doesn't like, does it? Where are the articles about legislative tyranny?
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 3:12PM
They aren't in session? Are you now claiming that pro forma sessions aren't real sessions? Tell that to the Americans enjoying their $40 tax cut that was passed in a pro forma session of the Senate on 23 December 2011.
"Senate itself violated its constitutional duties by refusing to even allow a vote on Rich Cordray until changes were made to an already valid law. "
No, it didn't.
"One house of Congress doesn't get to nullify a law it doesn't like, does it? Where are the articles about legislative tyranny?"
The Founders intended for the wheels of Washington to turn excruciatingly slowly. Obama needs to start working with Congress and stop biatching. It is only going to get worse for him.
Breaking the law will lead to his doom. I don't think that he wants to be remembered as a Nixon or Clinton.
DRed| 1.5.12 @ 3:56PM
The Senate has the constitutional duty to provide it's advice and consent to the appointment of executive branch officials. Republicans in the senate have indicated that they will refuse to vote on ANY nominee for the director of CFPB. The Senate, alone in its arrogance, has decided that it can unilaterally override the will of the American people by refusing to allow the executive branch to fulfill it's legal duties. In furtherance of their unconstitutional power grab, they are pretending to be in session by sending one member to bang a gavel every 3 days and then go home. 99 members of the senate are absent, and no business is discussed, but these petty tyrants claim to be in session and expect the rest of us to smile at their fiction? It is the will of the American people that we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is the will of the American people that we have a functioning Labor Relations Review Board. Republican Senators are unconstitutionally trying to prevent this. The founders intended for the wheels of washington to turn slowly, but they certainly didn't intend for them to stop, which is what the Senate is trying to do.
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 7:41PM
Then, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. Until then, it is unconstitutional and Obama broke the law. Period. End of story.
DRed| 1.5.12 @ 7:55PM
Wait, what? Because the Senate is operating unconstitutionally we should amend the constitution to prohibit their unconstitutional actions? I don't think I follow.
The senate is supposed to be able to advise and offer consent to the president when he seeks to appoint officers to carry out the functions of the executive branch. I'm going to assume you agree with me so far. If the Senate is unable to offer that advice and consent (because it is in recess) the constitution permits the president to appoint executive officers to what are generally shorter terms through recess appointments. The Senate claims to be in session right now because a Senator shows up every 3 or 4 times to bang a desk with a gavel. But as a body, it is clearly unable to fulfill it's constitutional function right now-there's no senate to offer any advice to the president. Here's the relevant part of the motion made before the start of the pro forma sessions:
"Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session the Senate adjourn until the following pro forma session". The recess power was designed to allow the executive branch to function at times when the senate is not functioning. A senate that is explicitly conducting no business is a senate that is not functioning. Obama's argument is novel, but so is this use of pro forma sessions (and yes, I know it was the Democrats that stared this). If it goes to court I'm fairly certain Obama will win. But I guess we'll get to see. In the meantime, the Republicans have allowed Obama to once again paint them as enemies of the middle class and tools of corporations. I mean, who opposes consumer financial protection?
George S| 1.5.12 @ 9:34PM
Democrats have a Senate majority. The "obstruction" argument is nonsense.
If the Senate rejects a nomination it is not an unconstitutional power grab -- it is their enumerated power. Liberal-Speak.
Senate is in session or it is not. Pretending doesn't count. Is Obama is pretending to be an executive?
The will of the American people was forcefully expressed at town hall meetings, yet Democrats ignored them and sought to "deem-pass" legislation. More Liberal-Speak.
The CFPB was pushed into the Federal Reserve, making it immune to the people's ballot. Blatantly unconstitutional; the Republicans are standing up to the rule of law while the Democrats seek to circumvent it by strategically placing it away from the people's (congressional) oversight.
Most of us are not blind.
melanerpes| 1.5.12 @ 1:13PM
The only way to stop him is politically. The number of fools in the electorate has grown significantly, making the political solution more difficult.
RJ| 1.5.12 @ 2:14PM
Obama's illegal appointments is yet another illustration of how much the United States has become a lawless society. You cannot read the Constitution and reasonably think that the US government complies with its terms. Constitutional provisions are not self-enforcing. They are a marker which the public can use to hold government officials accountable and it is past time to do so.
Oldefarte| 1.5.12 @ 2:31PM
No Quin, he must continue [as surely all monarchs/kings rightfully do] bestowing his governmental manta upon the indigents and illegals of this nation at taxpayer expense. How dare you insinuate that he is illegitimate [haven't you read perhaps his bestseller, DREAMS that was a dedication to his FATHER, or at least to in Kenyian inseminator if not his true father]. No Quin, he has told us all that YES WE [MEANING ''''I'''''''] CAN, and by that he subjectively puts himself above the laws of man, not confined by congressional constraints, a mere mortal. He represents HOPE & CHANGE does he not, so why not let him continue in his greatness, converting water into wine and bread into fish? No doubt he's been videoed walking upon the waters of Hawaii, but his MSM has refrained from publishing proof of same in a fair an balanced activity. No doubt upon an election victory on 11/4/12, the large rock of the tomb covering the white house will be magistically rolled back and he will rise again to meet his father for more DREAMS!!!!!!!!!
Crosscut| 1.5.12 @ 3:18PM
Someone on Obama's staff is giving him some bad advice on the Constitution, the powers of his office and rules and laws under which the House and Senate operate. Someone with some authority needs to straighten this ignoramus out.
Scott | 1.5.12 @ 3:19PM
Let's bump the issue up a level. What is the basic problem here? The Constitution is not being enforced not just for this one issue but for innumerable issues from the federal government.
In effect we are not a constitutional republic. If the Constitution is not being enforced, then it is not authoritative. Since the Constitution is not limiting and minimizing the federal government as it was intended the US is a representative democracy by default.
Like democracies always do, we are collapsing from within.
The problem we must address is how to create active enforcement of the Constitution.
I read where a lot of commentators say that the people must rise up and hold government accountable. That's a nice thought. But how's that risey accounty thing workin' out for ya these days? Not so good, eh?
We make little gains now and then, but overall we lose ground. Are we really so clueless that we cannot recognize that the experiment of the balance of powers stopped working a hundred years ago?
Face the fact. Today Obama is stomping on you like Hitler on Chamberlain.
And the blitzkrieg shall continue until such time as the right people decide to do what is necessary to create that office charged with actively enforcing the Constitution. The new office must have power of imeachment and power of arrest as well as some judicial powers, so it can force resolution of issues (such as fixing social security). It must be set up by people who believe in the Constitution and the principles it stands upon. If this doesn't happen you may safely assume that the US will collapse to the point where the leftists can and will create their own version of that same office.
A one time quick fix will not repair the greater problem. A one time change of elected representatives will not fix a deep set flaw in the Constution. It must be firmed up by making it actively enforced instead of passively enforced like it is now.
MS| 1.5.12 @ 3:58PM
Well said. You write, "And the blitzkrieg shall continue until such time as the right people decide to do what is necessary to create that office charged with actively enforcing the Constitution."
Are you referring to the de jure grand jury?
Scott | 1.5.12 @ 10:21PM
Actually I'm referring to a full time unelected officer. The proper term for the office is a Reeve. It is an old English term that goes back to the 13th century. The reeves were persons with some police and some judicial authority for a shire. The phrase "shire reeve" is where we get the word "sheriff" from.
The office would have to be created and implemented outside of the democratic process. Democracy is the disease the Constitution is meant to control.
Jeff Perren| 1.6.12 @ 12:30PM
I thought there already was such a body... called the Supreme Court. Granted, it's done a very mixed job of enforcing the Constitution the past 100 years, for which the solution is NOT another Federal body.
The solution is rejection of the Progressive philosophy at the root of all our large-scale social problems today. The battle is not primarily political and has no political solution; it is a battle of ideas.
JanineC| 1.5.12 @ 4:46PM
Yes, he MUST be stopped-- and it should be now.
But please do not call those people "liberal". They are NOT liberal--they are LEFTISTS! They don't even know the true meaning of the word. We must stop using the word "liberal" when referencing leftists because it only helps them to propagandize an undereducated and unsuspecting public.
David W| 1.5.12 @ 4:52PM
And what happens if the election in 2012 isn't to his liking? will he be able to throw out the results in states that don't go his way? We've see that the DOJ is going to fight states when they want to prevent voter fraud, what else will it and Obama do? Will we see brown shirted ACORN members at polling stations in November, carrying batons within the voting place, encouraging people to support Obama?
What is Congress doing? We know the boot licking leader of the Senate won't do anything, he's busy looking for unicorns. What about the leader of the House? What's he doing, besides crying in his milk. If Congress won't do anything who will?
We already have him aligning with enemies of this country - Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban. Chavez is letting Iran put ICBMs in his country, and Obama does nothing about it. Will the Military at some point tell Obama to go pound sand? Or is that what it will take, the Military having to stand up to the so-called constitutional lawyer, because we may not be allowed to vote him out?
MyGirlFriday| 1.5.12 @ 5:25PM
Mr. Quinn, I fear it is too late. May I suggest that you read The Enterprise Blog piece by James Pethokoukis titled "January Surprise: Is Obama preparing a trillion-dollar mass refinancing of mortgages?" This may just be why Obama made his recess appointment of Richard Cordray. If he manages to pull this off, it will be one of the largest stimulus packages in American history. I would also suggest that he will be loved by one and all when election time rolls around.
Reading many of the "conservative" comments following the article: they think it is great that Obama would force the banks to bail them out. There are just as many republicans eating government cheese as there are democrats we should never forget this point. Threaten to take away their cheese and Obama once again runs to the rescue; pointing his finger at those knuckle dragging republicans. Another win for Obama.
We all know that Obama has spent the last six months preparing his strategy of running against both houses. He has the ear of the electorate, he has his justice department fixing the elections, and his millions of leftist minions and special interest groups not to mention every state with union thugs waiting for their marching orders. They will be covering his back and their own in 2012.
What are the republicans doing? Mitch McConnell upon learning of the recess appointments "How dare he!" That will work. Boehner (crickets). Republican pundits incessantly talking about Obama's low poll numbers (fooling themselves) while at the same time dragging down our own candidates. Obama and company couldn't be happier. He can stand before a crowd and lie with impunity about republicans and his own record and is applauded as the great defender of the middle class. An electorate that would sell themselves for 30/cent a day payroll tax credit while robbing social security really cannot be relied on to vote for anyone but Obama and more of the same.
From a distance, I hear the horseman cometh.
Margie| 1.5.12 @ 6:00PM
Yes, Obama is a MENACE. Perfect word to describe him.
You are right, Quin. He MUST be stopped!
All sane human beings need to register Republican if they aren't already, and VOTE for the Republican nominee.
Unless they are prepared for more of this ILEGAL activity by an unrepentant Socialist.
Oldefarte| 1.6.12 @ 10:54AM
'Socialist' is too mild a word description IMHO!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 1.8.12 @ 6:29PM
Hmm, you know, you're right.
Change that to unrepentant Marxist.
Resist We Much! | 1.5.12 @ 6:09PM
Careful Barack, That Tree Might Start Getting Thirsty.
http://predicthistunpredictpas.....start.html
abu nudnik| 1.5.12 @ 6:46PM
The best, most concise and complete article of its type on this issue. I've facebooked it.
The only one missing was "I'll get my [!] jobs bill passed piecemeal, even if it means one executive order per week until it's done" or something to that effect. Presidents don't legislate. That's what the legislative branch is for.
BTW: Can't it be argued that a recess appointment on a weekend is only in effect until Congress sits next, two days hence?
This would be the best way to oppose it. Obama would LOVE and impeachment attempt. Congress should just vote to nullify the recess appointments since their term is up. Recess is up and so are they.
Controse| 1.5.12 @ 6:48PM
So macho Hillyer where is your call for immediate beginnings of impeachment? There should be no other subject in your blog or the blog of anyone else until he is impeached. Harp, harp,harp. So when are we going to see the impeachment word in your fearless blogs?
Oldefarte| 1.7.12 @ 11:55AM
Impeachment charges instituted against him would immediately result in his political rebuttal of RACISM, DISENFRANCHISEMENT, DISCRIMINATION, GENTRIFICATION, ETC. [while become the rallying cry for Democrats anyway beginning with this year's election season leading up to November], which therefore would become an expensive waste of taxpayers' money and time needed for same. The one true solution is not impeachment, but rather election defeat in November!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cybercorrespondent | 2.12.12 @ 1:03PM
If Obama wins a second term, we will surely find out what his plan really is. http://youtu.be/8qHmXMMCrlI