Iowa

[spence]

I think the Justice Department findings provide more detail than I can, although they appear to be saying basically the same thing.

Justice Department Memo Backs Legality of Obama?s Recess Appointments - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the Justice Department findings provide more detail than I can, although they appear to be saying basically the same thing.

Justice Department Memo Backs Legality of Obama?s Recess Appointments - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

-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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

this appears to be what is
coming out of the Justic Department on a regular basis...

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”



citing the Obama Justice Department memo backing the Obama actions is, well.....credability is a bit lacking ..... but maybe credabliliy has to do with your "state of mind" and "whether or not you have the requisite intent to come up with something that would be "......UNCONSTITUTIONAL