Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (179053)	1/11/2012 12:32:11 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541823

Yes, "Mr. Smith" is a classic. Nobody disagrees, I submit, that the Senate could forever legally block appointments by actually staying in session so is there a qualitative difference between doing it this way? I see, though, that your argument is one of intent of the framers/founders not to have the government grind to a halt because of this. Ultimately isn't the issue incumbent on the "will of the people" to get better government by "trowing da bums" out if they don't perform. I'm thinking neither party wants to see this issue of "blocking" go to a court because a court actually might impose some judicial restrictions on the political process. Also, don't see anyone here holding Obama's feet to the fire for implementing the same procedures they were willing ot criticize Bush up and down for (manipulating the law to suit the politics.)

To: Win Smith who wrote (179053)	1/11/2012 1:27:11 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541823

>>As far as constitutionality goes, it seems fine that the Congress operate under whatever rules it chooses. In some broad sense, it doesn't seem fine that the Congress get to cripple the Executive branch in its constitutional duties to carry out the law by refusing to let executive appointments even be considered. Of course, in the "original intent" sense that conservatives like to bloviate about, I think the framers would laugh, or cry, or maybe both at the same time, at the idea that Congress could be "in session" by virtue of somebody pounding a gavel in an empty chamber once a week.<< Agreed. Well put.

To: Win Smith who wrote (179053)	1/11/2012 8:34:30 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541823

"it doesn't seem fine that the Congress get to cripple the Executive branch in its constitutional duties to carry out the law by refusing to let executive appointments even be considered" One of the Constitutional powers given to the executive branch is the ability to adjourn Congress. Another is to make appointments when Congress isn't in session,; eg adjourned. All the pres had to do was to say,"This session is over, I'll call another one when I feel like it." He didn't. He ain't Teddy Roosevelt. On December 7, 1903, President Teddy Roosevelt made over 160 recess appointments during a recess of less than one minute between the bangs of a gavel ending one session of congress and beginning the next session. It was, as Roosevelt put it, a "constructive recess." prime-policy.com