Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, Reid can point to the 171 appointments by Bush of people during recesses of the Senate. When he does this he fails to see that Bush did this pretty unconstitutional thing for 8 years and Obama has only 32, so far, but when you add in 90 more he would be at 132 in less than 4 years. I guess those numbers don't really count when you are the one in power, The GOP thought like that for those 8 years of Bush. Is there a chance that there is very little difference in the two parties? I sure think there is.
Of course, Reid can point to the 171 appointments by Bush of people during recesses of the Senate. When he does this he fails to see that Bush did this pretty unconstitutional thing for 8 years and Obama has only 32, so far, but when you add in 90 more he would be at 132 in less than 4 years. I guess those numbers don't really count when you are the one in power, The GOP thought like that for those 8 years of Bush. Is there a chance that there is very little difference in the two parties? I sure think there is.
The constitution provides for recess appointments. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush used recess appointments when the Senate was actually in recess. Obama recently made "recess" appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess. That's the part that is unconstitutional.
I was thinking the same thing. Nominees for office aren't unconstitutional. That's what the subject here is saying. That said, the OP might be from a different country originally and have issues with the language. Otherwise, I guess he/she didn't pay attention in school.
Last edited by noexcuseforignorance; 02-23-2012 at 10:27 AM..
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
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.
The constitution provides for recess appointments. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush used recess appointments when the Senate was actually in recess. Obama recently made "recess" appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess. That's the part that is unconstitutional.
What I see in this article is that both parties are against each other on this issue. Actually, I think the writer was pointing out that there is very little difference between the two on this issue. It is much like what I see as the establishment in the two parties. I think they work together and that really chaps my butt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
