Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 1/12/2002 5:40:46 PM EDT
President Bush did what every other President does when faced with a Senate that refuses to consider his nominees for confirmation - make a 'recess appointment'! [size=4]Bush Sidesteps The Senate[/size=4] President Makes Recess Appointments For 2 Conservative Nominees (CBS) Circumventing Senate opposition, President Bush signed recess appointments Friday for conservatives Otto Reich and Eugene Scalia. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House gave Congress formal notification of the long-threatened appointments. By exercising his executive authority while Congress is in recess, Reich and Scalia will be allowed to serve until Congress recesses again at the end of the year. "Both positions have been vacant for close to a year and the Senate, by failing to act on either nomination, left the president with no other option but to exercise his constitutional right to appoint them both," an administration official told Reuters. Mr. Bush named Reich assistant secretary of state for Latin America, the top diplomatic post for the region that Mr. Bush made his primary foreign relations priority before the war on terrorism consumed his first year in office. Scalia, the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, now assumes the post of Labor Department solicitor, for which Bush nominated him several months ago. Scalia's nomination was opposed by organized labor, in part for his opposition to Clinton-era rules aimed at reducing workplace injuries. Outspoken and ideologically conservative, Scalia becomes the Labor Department's top lawyer in charge of enforcing federal labor laws and worker protections. Top presidential appointments are subject to Senate confirmation, but the Senate adjourned last month until Jan. 23 without taking up either Scalia's or Reich's nominations. * * * See story at:[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,324052-412,00.shtml[/url] Eric The(Whoa!HowDoesItFeel,Mr.Daschle?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/12/2002 6:00:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/12/2002 6:16:17 PM EDT
Yeah, that's all he could do. But he should have fill ALL vacancies in ALL positions being held up by the Senate. Trouble is they're only in until the end the year. Then we start the fun all over again. Hope they can make a difference. What do you think the chances are for Repubs to pick up Congressional seats or, better yet, Senate seats this November?
Link Posted: 1/12/2002 6:27:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 7:58:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2002 8:01:03 AM EDT by Rescue35]
IIRC, The Constitution says he can only bypass the senate when the office is [b]vacated during the recces[/b]. So its OK for GW Bush to do it but not for Clinton? Hypocrits. R35
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 12:00:34 PM EDT
What have we here.....[:)] [img]http://community.webshots.com/storage/1/v4/2/67/0/29126700NbNNFblsEu_ph.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 12:02:40 PM EDT
Hey Tuukka, That`s sharp!
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 12:09:12 PM EDT
Heh, the original at CJ had their site at the background, just modified it a bit.
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 1:47:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 2:10:45 PM EDT
Article II, section 2 of the constitution states: "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." i.e. the president can fill vacancies that occur while the senate is not in session. He should NOT be able to make an end run around congress by filling an already vacant position that the senate apparently does not want filled. Note, I'm not making a judgement on his appointees, merely his violation of the constitution. As much as I hate congressional democrats, I half-hope they try to do something about it. The cyncic in me knows they won't, because it will reduce the power of a potential future democrat president. But what do I know--I'm not a lawyer, and the lawyers tell me our constitution is a "living document" that is open to reinterpretation depending on what those currently in power want it to mean. Why write it down to begin with, if the words have no meaning?
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 2:18:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 2:24:09 PM EDT
It pisses me off that that asshole klinton could ban the importation of some rifles with the stoke of a pen by using executive orders, but Bush can't even appoint cabinet members without all the bs that congress starts.
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 2:32:32 PM EDT
Philidelphia_Gunman: Blame Bush the Elder for that one--if the 1989 ban had not been in effect, the BATF would not have had the excuse to WIDEN the import ban at the request (order) of Clinton. [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/assault/memo.htm[/url] [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/assault/report.htm[/url] Rather "amusing" bit in there, btw. In it, the BATF reads the "readily adaptable to sporting uses" clause of GCA68 as essentially meaningless, since "all firearms can be, with some effort, adaptable to sporting purposes." i.e. they couldn't regulate anything if they actually followed the wording and intent of the law. As others have said, it's REALLY stupid to allow the same organization to interpret AND enforce the law.
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 3:06:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2002 3:10:19 PM EDT by Rescue35]
Originally Posted By raf: Can you please re-state your post? I'm not sure of your meaning. Are you dissing Bush for doing, on a limited basis, what Clinton did as the norm?
View Quote
Abuse of power is wrong, weather or not Clinton did it or not to any extint should not make it ok for GW.
BTW, don't you miss spell check?
View Quote
I do not have control over the spell check button working. I've never been able to spell do to the fact that the english language (which is my primary language) is not logical and that side of my brain doesnt work right.[%|] R35
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 3:39:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 4:19:21 PM EDT
Post from Zak -
Note, I'm not making a judgement on his appointees, merely his violation of the constitution. As much as I hate congressional democrats, I half-hope they try to do something about it.
View Quote
If George W.'s action violates the Constitution, then it does so only in the sense that both you and Sen. Robert Byrd believe that it frustrates the Senate's duty of 'advice and consent' to Presidential nominations. It represents the only [u]lawful[/u] manner in which George W. can thwart the political machinations of Sen. 'Puff-Daddy' Daschle in refusing to even bring the nominations up in committee for a vote! Much less a vote in the full Senate! Daschle doesn't because both nominations would pass, just as the President's energy bill would also pass, but is not brought up for a vote in order to give the DEMOs something to run on as an election year issue! Remember, these individuals were not rejected by the Senate, but through ruse and dilatory actions by Daschle and his colleagues, the posts to which they have been nominated remain vacant! In mid-1998, of the 320 government positions that are required to receive Senatorial confirmation, a staggering 59 (representing 18%) of those positions were filled by 'recess appointees.' Now maybe you were hollering to the top of your lungs about it back then! I don't know, because you weren't around back then, I guess. But I damn sure know that Sen. Robertt Byrd was keeping his damn mouth shut! Why? Well, who was President back in 1998? BTW, what does the Constitution say about 'senatorial courtesy' in which each Senator is given an absolute Veto over the appointments for federal positions in his or her state? Answer: Not a damn thing! So when I hear you and Sen. Byrd barking about the unconstitutionality of 'senatorial courtesy' then I might pay attention to ya'll's arguments over recess appointments. Eric The(ButNotBefore!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 4:31:44 PM EDT
I said to myself"self,this is great! nobody here is talking crap about W. for doing his job. Maybe it has not been so long that people don't know what a prez. should be like,and that a leader has to act when time is short." But alass,I read on and there I saw it.........a knee jerk! Boo-Hoo'en his butt off. I gess some people have a need to be upset about something or they would nothing to do at all.
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 4:40:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By big_bore: I said to myself"self,this is great! nobody here is talking crap about W. for doing his job. Maybe it has not been so long that people don't know what a prez. should be like,and that a leader has to act when time is short." But alass,I read on and there I saw it.........a knee jerk! Boo-Hoo'en his butt off. I gess some people have a need to be upset about something or they would nothing to do at all.
View Quote
His job is to uphold the constitution not shred it! I'm sure you wont mind when G.W. signs the "04 Assualt Weapon Ban".
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 6:30:18 PM EDT
Post from Rescue35 -
His job is to uphold the constitution not shred it!
View Quote
Isn't that just a tad hyperbolic, Rescue35? A 'recess appointment' is a 'shredding' of the US Constitution? You must have been on a perpetual 'suicide watch' during the Clinton Administration! Eric The(IMean,ISupposeHeMustHave'Vaporized'TheCon­stitutionUnderYourRigorousStandards)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/13/2002 7:47:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2002 7:50:24 PM EDT by Rescue35]
LOL What Clinton did was wrong. What Bush did is just as wrong because its the same thing. So its ok for Bush to do it because Clinton did? So.....GW can ban AW and high cap mags, as well as impose a waiting period on new gun perchases? Bush is skirting just like Clinton did. G.W. Bush is a great politician. Goodnight all R35 P.S.Wow my first real debate here....I feel like family now.[:)]
Top Top