Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
|
It would have been nice of you to give a brief summary of salient points. I tried to read . . . then scan . . . then got bored with fine, legal "depends on the meaning of is" type gobbledy gook. Making the Constitution much more difficult than an actual straightforward document, is the method commonly used to subvert it. One phrase caught my eye--something to the effect that pro-forma recess was a way to break the Presidents's power to make recess appointments. No, it doesn't break that power. Nor was that power granted as a means to break the Senate's power to advise and consent. The "power" was not meant to skirt the Senate when Presidents see that they can't get a confirmation. The President was not meant to be a dictator who gets his every wish. There should be agreement between the branches of government, not war. And each branch should respect the others' Constitutional powers. The world would not end if Cordray is not appointed, or if the president had to wait for the Senate to be in session. Nor is it even some kind of emergency that this regulatory agency had to be commissioned STAT--OR AT ALL. And even if it were needed and justified, the opposition to it was how it was structured to give its director sole discretion--too much power in one person that even the other such agencies did not give. The reason for stalling was to change the agencies structure to that which it was originally supposed to have. This is just another Federal Gvt. controlling hand inserted into our lives, and a more dictatorial one than usual. And the executive has, in stepping on Congressional prerogative, become just a little more like the King we rebelled against.
Threaded Mode