Much ado over pro-forma sessions

Did President Obama violate the Constitution of the United States when he made recess appointments to the Labor Board, as well as the Consumer Protection Agency?  Republicans claim that he did, so let's examine that claim, and consider the question of whether Obama's "recess" appointments are Constitutional.

From the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:

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. 

OK, that's a given.  Advice and Consent. But what happens when the Senate refuses to do it's job, by refusing the Constitutional role of Advice and Consent?  We will get to that later on.  But first, let's get to the meat of the issue.  From Article 1, Section 5:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent ofthe other, adjourn for more than three days,nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

So the Republican-controlled House has not given it's consent to the Senate to adjourn.  Therefore, the Senate has been holding pro-forma sessions every 3 days, in which no business is conducted, other than providing an "appearance" that it is still in session.  But Obama, nevertheless, made his appointments.  Unconstitutional?  If you listen to Glenn Beck and company, yes.  But it seems that Glen Beck doesn't know as much about the Constitution as he would like people to believe.  He and Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten this little part of the Constitution, namely Article 2, Section 3:

[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That's correct.  On extraordinary occasions, the president may consider Congress adjourned."to such time as he shall think proper".  And what would be considered an extraordinary occasion?  The Senate refusing to do it's job, of course.  And there we have it.  Republicans can whine all they want about this, but if they attempt to take it to court, they will look like idiots..... Wait, they already look like idiots, in attempting to create much ado over pro-forma sessions, or in other words, much ado about nothing.

2012 - The year of the twilight's last gleaming

From FOX News:

In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy. 

And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:

1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.

2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.

3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.

Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.

Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.

Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.

Does the ghost of Ronald Reagan like today's Republicans? I think not.

For those who keep praising Clinton's balancing of the budget, I have news for you. It was a Republican Congress that can take credit for that too. This was part of Newt's Contract With America. Clinton did sign off on it though, so both parties can take credit. We were actually beginning to pay off our debt. This goes to show that it takes two to tango, and those were the days when, despite the Democrats and Republicans hate for each other, they worked together to do good things. Those were the days when politicians put America first, once in a while. Today is a different story. Both parties should be ashamed of themselves, but especially Republicans. Ronald Reagan frequently reached across the aisle, and he and Tip O'Neill frequently used to drink beer together at the end of the day. Republicans - You have squandered any legacy you believe to have come from Ronald Reagan. If he were still alive, he'd shoot the damn lot of you and start over. LOL.

House Republicans have shot themselves in the foot

In years past, it has always been the Democrats screwing themselves on the issues, but what's good for them is also good for the GOP.  Here is a case in point. From the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says a bipartisan compromise reached by the Senate is the “only viable way” to prevent a tax increase on Jan. 1.  In a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room on Tuesday, the president said a “faction” of Republicans in the House is refusing to vote on a Senate bill that would extend a payroll tax cut for two months. Obama said, “The clock is ticking. Time is running out.” The president said House Republicans are trying to “wring concessions” from Democrats on issues that “have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut.”. Obama says lawmakers owe it to the American people “to come together and do the right thing.”

And of course, although I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, sometimes strongly, I have to say that he is right on this one. After all, Speaker Boehner originally kicked this over to the Senate, demanding that Democrats compromise. Democrats in the Senate DID compromise to the extent that the unemployment tax bill passed the Senate with a LOT of Republican support. When it came back to the House, Boehner could not keep the extremists in his party in line, and the compromise failed. I can't fault Boehner for attempting to kick this back to the Senate, and demand more compromises again, even though GOP Senators managed to already extract compromises. Boehner is over a barrel, and his leadership is weak. In the end, almost all of the House Republicans revolted against the bipartisan Senate plan, which was endorsed by no less than Mitch McConnell himself.

Now, instead of forcing Obama's hand, as they hoped to do, House Republicans have put themselves in the hot seat, because the failure here is certainly going to be a red meat issue for Obama and the Democratic party in 2012. When you only hold one House and not the Presidency, "my way or the highway" is not going to work. This was a serious miscalculation on the part of House Republicans, who will suffer consequences for their actions next year. This can still be avoided. Don't attempt to call Obama's bluff. Just go back into session and pass the damn thing. You will look like heroes if you do, and goats if you don't.
 

Not voting means you voted? OK, whatever you say, but the court disagrees.

An Appeals court has made an interesting ruling on union voting rules for companies that fall under the Railway Labor Act.  But first some background:

House Republicans pushed this year to revert to the old rules, under which workers who did not cast ballots in union elections would be counted as “no” votes. The effort, which came in the form of an amendment to the FAA’s funding bill, led to a protracted fight with Democrats and union groups and to a brief shutdown of the FAA this summer. 

That's right. You heard it correctly. Republicans have always supported a rule that says if you didn't vote, then you voted, and of course, you voted "our" ideological way too. That rule was changed to say that if you didn't vote, you didn't vote. Of course, this had to go to court. The Court of Appeals ruled on it yesterday. The court made the following earth shattering announcement:

If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.

Gee, what a surprise. In another move, the court is going to take up the issue on whether the sky is blue, or as Republicans claim, it is purple with yellow polka dots.

President Obama's Detroit Intervention

From the Detroit Free Press this morning:

This year, for the first time since 1988, all three Detroit automakers have gained market share in the U.S.

There are a number of factors which contribute to the automakers becoming profitable again, including the earthquakes in Japan, which decimated the Japanese auto industry, and the Obama bailout....... Ahh, the Obama bailout. I want to talk about this one.

To be honest, the Obama bailout of the auto industry is something that I was rather torn on. After seeing the results of the bankster bailout, I was more than a little pissed when Obama decided to bail out Detroit. However, one cannot argue with results here. OK, OK, I can admit when I am wrong. Should the government intervene and attempt to prop up or otherwise save a failing sector of the economy? Generally, I still say no, but now with more nuance in my answer. There are times when government intervention is needed, especially when the end result is that sector paying back the money to the government, becoming more profitable, and yes, saving jobs too. OK, I will give Obama the credit on that. I still don't like him, but even a broken clock works twice a day. Well done, Mr. President.

Yeah, yeah, you can call me a flip-flopper now.

War on Christmas Rhetoric is Anti-American

I would call the war on Christmas rhetoric by Limbaugh and others anti-Semitic. Jews do not celebrate Christmas, but Hannukah. This is the main reason I tend to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". There is no war on Christmas. There is only a war by nutters against Jews, and others who do not celebrate Christmas, but their own religious holidays.

I always thought religious freedom in America was important enough to stand up for, so I am standing up for it. No doubt some self-righteous assholes will call me an anti-American Communist Nazi that makes baby Jesus cry, but I would call myself someone who is standing up for religious freedom, which is one of the reasons we have founding fathers, a Constitution, and America itself.