[Hoot Gibson]

Criminal laws govern morality in every civilized country on the planet. When people say that they don't want the government to legislate morality, they are not thinking clearly or they are closet anarchists.

[TheRealVille]

Quite a bit of difference in legislating morality in laws that harm people, and morality laws that do not harm anybody else, ie: gay marriage and smoking pot. If you want to legislate morality, outlaw alcohol and tobacco, stuff that has been proven to kill the people that use them, along with other people.

[Hoot Gibson]

Quite a bit of difference in legislating morality in laws that harm people, and morality laws that do not harm anybody else, ie: gay marriage and smoking pot. If you want to legislate morality, outlaw alcohol and tobacco, stuff that has been proven to kill the people that use them, along with other people.

You think (and I agree) that pot smoking is usually a "victimless" crime, and as such should be legal for adults in a perfect world. (In my perfect world, people would be smart enough not to smoke it.)

But neither of us should have the right to force that view on the majority no matter how much we thing that we are right.

Smoking in a restaurant harms nobody that exercises their free will not to enter the restaurant, yet you would squeal on a restaurant owner that would not do the government's bidding and enforce the law in his restaurant instead of doing business with a restaurant that voluntarily provides a smoke free environment. Your views on pot and smoking on privately owned property seem inconsistent.

The only difference is your opinion of which activities are moral and which are not. Laws are man's attempt to legislate morality, based on society's consensus of what constitutes moral behavior.

[TheRealThing]

You think (and I agree) that pot smoking is usually a "victimless" crime, and as such should be legal for adults in a perfect world. (In my perfect world, people would be smart enough not to smoke it.)

But neither of us should have the right to force that view on the majority no matter how much we thing that we are right.

Smoking in a restaurant harms nobody that exercises their free will not to enter the restaurant, yet you would squeal on a restaurant owner that would not do the government's bidding and enforce the law in his restaurant instead of doing business with a restaurant that voluntarily provides a smoke free environment. Your views on pot and smoking on privately owned property seem inconsistent.

The only difference is your opinion of which activities are moral and which are not. Laws are man's attempt to legislate morality, based on society's consensus of what constitutes moral behavior.

Right, and we have taken a new tack since around 1950 when the ACLU first sued the state of New Jersey over taxpayer funded transportation of parochial school students there. This is the landmark case that ignited the seperation of church and state debate. My position is that America got her convictions about morality from Christianity.

The function of government is to protect it's citizenry from threats foreign and domestic, not to decide what has been considered right for over 150 years is now wrong and vice versa.

[Hoot Gibson]

[/B]


Right, and we have taken a new tack since around 1950 when the ACLU first sued the state of New Jersey over taxpayer funded transportation of parochial school students there. This is the landmark case that ignited the seperation of church and state debate. My position is that America got her convictions about morality from Christianity.

The function of government is to protect it's citizenry from threats foreign and domestic, not to decide what has been considered right for over 150 years is now wrong and vice versa.

I agree with you. The US Constitution is supposed to protect us from arbitrary changes to the way that we are governed and to serve as protection from corrupt elected officials. Unfortunately, small minorities (meaning subgroups holding beliefs in opposition to the national consensus) have successfully used the courts to thwart the legislative process.

I hold libertarian views but I believe deeply that the US Constitution was never intended to be reinterpreted to suit different groups of activists over time. The founders of this nation provided an amendment process to allow the Constitution to be a "living document" but using the political process to build consensuses, get legislation passed, and amend the Constitution is too much work for socialists like Barack Obama and his supporters.

The latest outrage committed by our outlaw president was to make four recess appointments, even though the Senate was out of session less than the three day period that had been considered a "recess" by past administrations, including Bill Clinton's Justice Department. Many liberal legal experts believe that the appointments that Obama made are unconstitutional.

Using Obama's logic, a president could just install whoever he wants into positions that would normally require Senate confirmation during two-day weekends.

We are as close to a dictatorship today as anytime since FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court to ensure that his New Deal programs would be found constitutional.

[TheRealVille]

I agree with you. The US Constitution is supposed to protect us from arbitrary changes to the way that we are governed and to serve as protection from corrupt elected officials. Unfortunately, small minorities (meaning subgroups holding beliefs in opposition to the national consensus) have successfully used the courts to thwart the legislative process.

I hold libertarian views but I believe deeply that the US Constitution was never intended to be reinterpreted to suit different groups of activists over time. The founders of this nation provided an amendment process to allow the Constitution to be a "living document" but using the political process to build consensuses, get legislation passed, and amend the Constitution is too much work for socialists like Barack Obama and his supporters.

The latest outrage committed by our outlaw president was to make four recess appointments, even though the Senate was out of session less than the three day period that had been considered a "recess" by past administrations, including Bill Clinton's Justice Department. Many liberal legal experts believe that the appointments that Obama made are unconstitutional.

Using Obama's logic, a president could just install whoever he wants into positions that would normally require Senate confirmation during two-day weekends.

We are as close to a dictatorship today as anytime since FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court to ensure that his New Deal programs would be found constitutional.

Yet, his recess appointments are still less than half of GW's per year. He is also less than Reagan and Bush1 per year. Is the 3 day period law or just what has been done in the past? From everything I can gather, he was completely legal in his appointments. You have to admit, the republicans do everything possible to wreck his presidency. They have even admitted it.


Edit: They hadn't just left for a "2 day weekend", though. From what I can gather, the 3 day stuff isn't required. "A "recess appointment" can be made by the president any time Congress is not in session, for any length of time. The appointee must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or when the position becomes vacant again."

[Hoot Gibson]

Yet, his recess appointments are still less than half of GW's. He is also less than Reagan and Bush1. Is the 3 day period law or just what has been done in the past? From everything I can gather, he was completely legal in his appointments. You have to admit, the republicans do everything possible to wreck his presidency. They have even admitted it.

We are not talking recess appointments here. We are talking about Obama arbitrarily redefining what constitutes a Congressional recess and breaking past precedent and contradicting the opinion of his own Justice Department about what is legal. The only time that Obama is not damaging the moral fabric and legal foundation of this nation is when he is on a golf course or on vacation. He is an outlaw. If Republicans can limit the damage that this would-be dictator can do between now and the next election, then more power to them.

[TheRealVille]

We are not talking recess appointments here. We are talking about Obama arbitrarily redefining what constitutes a Congressional recess and breaking past precedent and contradicting the opinion of his own Justice Department about what is legal. The only time that Obama is not damaging the moral fabric and legal foundation of this nation is when he is on a golf course or on vacation. He is an outlaw. If Republicans can limit the damage that this would-be dictator can do between now and the next election, then more power to them.

This is one time I agree with what he has done, because it actually puts someone in a position to keep a watch on the big banks, and other entities that are hurting the american people. Congress wanted to block this appointment while they were in session, just to be blocking and play politics. Not to mention it wrangles in some of their big business friends.



Bedtime.

[Hoot Gibson]

There is really no excuse for anybody supporting a president so willing to break the law, regardless of their political affiliation. The US Senate was not in recess. This was not a recess appointment. The appointments were illegal and Obama knows that they were illegal. His own Justice Department agrees that the appointments were illegal.

Time is running out to hold Obama accountable. He will be leaving office in a little more than a year. That is unless he decides that our election laws do not apply to him.

[INDENT]

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the consumer protection agency and named three others - two Democrats and one Republican - to the labor board. Those nominations had all been stymied by congressional Republicans, who said Mr. Obama was accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session, albeit a pro forma one without any business transacted. - more

[/INDENT]

Here is an exchange between own Obama's deputy Solicitor General and Chief Justice Roberts, which took place in March 2010.

[INDENT]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess
appointment power doesn't work why?

MR. KATYAL: The -- the recess appointment
power can work in -- in a recess. I think our office
has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days.
And -- and so, it is potentially available to avert the
future crisis that -- that could -- that could take
place with respect to the board. - more

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

There is really no excuse for anybody supporting a president so willing to break the law, regardless of their political affiliation. The US Senate was not in recess. This was not a recess appointment. The appointments were illegal and Obama knows that they were illegal. His own Justice Department agrees that the appointments were illegal.

Time is running out to hold Obama accountable. He will be leaving office in a little more than a year. That is unless he decides that our election laws do not apply to him.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Here is an exchange between own Obama's deputy Solicitor General and Chief Justice Roberts, which took place in March 2010.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

There is nothing about this appointment that is illegal. They were in recess, though maybe not for the 3 days. That 3 day isn't a law, it's just what has been done before. Of course, this is a topic for another thread, though.

[TheRealVille]

Republicans are holding "proforma" sessions just to try to block appointments. Some of them are only for a minute. BTW Hoot, I think if you will read that PDF file you posted(trying to make it look like the court was looking into this, post #99), the justices don't discuss this appointment. Did you post a link that you hadn't fully read?

Republicans also pointed to an Obama administration official referring to the three-day recess precedent in a legal argument before the Supreme Court, but the justices did not address that issue and were rather focused on the legitimacy of decisions by a government agency that did not have a quorum of members.

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could become entangled in a legal battle over its legitimacy, though history and the Constitution appear to favor him, experts said.

The White House said on Wednesday Obama would use his constitutional authority to install Cordray while Congress was not in session, drawing anger and criticism from rival Republicans who insisted Congress was not in formal recess.

While the Senate resumes lawmaking only on January 23, it has been holding brief non-legislative "proforma" sessions every three days to try to keep Obama from making recess appointments without its consent. The last, on Tuesday, was for a minute; the next is on Friday.

Infuriated Republicans denounced Obama's action on Wednesday as unprecedented, but history shows similar appointments were made during the presidencies of both Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

White House lawyers determined the Senate was in recess as long as it was not conducting legislative business and Obama could therefore move ahead with Cordray's appointment under the Constitution, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said. He said this was also the view during the George W. Bush administration.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/0...8G20120105

[TheRealVille]

I also notice you "bold" that they were in session, but forgot to bold the rest of the sentence. They are holding pro forma sessions, where they are not conducting any business. I'll bold the other half for you.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session, albeit a pro forma one without any business transacted.

[TheRealVille]

Maybe one of the mods could do a cleanup of this thread and put the "appointments" posts in a thread of their own?

[TheRealThing]

Yet, his recess appointments are still less than half of GW's per year. He is also less than Reagan and Bush1 per year. Is the 3 day period law or just what has been done in the past? From everything I can gather, he was completely legal in his appointments. You have to admit, the republicans do everything possible to wreck his presidency. They have even admitted it.


Edit: They hadn't just left for a "2 day weekend", though. From what I can gather, the 3 day stuff isn't required. "A "recess appointment" can be made by the president any time Congress is not in session, for any length of time. The appointee must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or when the position becomes vacant again."

The difference in this whole argument, justifying Obama's misnamed 'recess appointments', by the actions of his predecessor George W is this. George W honored the pro forma sessions staged by Harry Reid during his (W's) term, by NOT making any appointments. Obama has refused the same courtesy to Leader McConnell. Further justifying the lawless act by pointing out the obvious, the fact that congress isn't doing any business at all, during these pro forma sessions. Duh--- Here is the definition of pro forma. "The term pro forma (Latin "as a matter of form") is a term applied to practices or documents that are done as a pure formality, perfunctorily, or seek to satisfy the minimum requirements or to conform to a convention or doctrine. Pro Forma by definition means they aren't going to do anything, hence the concept, of having Pro Forma Sessions. Further,no president has made a recess appointment during a break of less than 10 days in the last 20 years.
per·func·to·ry
   [per-fuhngk-tuh-ree] Show IPA

adjective
1.
performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial: perfunctory courtesy.

2.
lacking interest, care, or enthusiasm; indifferent or apathetic:

Please explain what should be happening in congress during pro forma session?

[TheRealVille]

The difference in this whole argument, justifying Obama's misnamed 'recess appointments', by the actions of his predecessor George W is this. George W honored the pro forma sessions staged by Harry Reid during his (W's) term, by NOT making any appointments. Obama has refused the same courtesy to Leader McConnell. Further justifying the lawless act by pointing out the obvious, the fact that congress isn't doing any business at all, during these pro forma sessions. Duh--- Here is the definition of pro forma. "The term pro forma (Latin "as a matter of form") is a term applied to practices or documents that are done as a [B]pure formality, perfunctorily, or seek to satisfy the minimum requirements or to conform to a convention or doctrine. Pro Forma by definition means they aren't going to do anything, hence the concept, of having Pro Forma Sessions. Further,no president has made a recess appointment during a break of less than 10 days in the last 20 years.[/B]
per·func·to·ry
   [per-fuhngk-tuh-ree] Show IPA

adjective
1.
performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial: perfunctory courtesy.

2.
lacking interest, care, or enthusiasm; indifferent or apathetic:

Please explain what should be happening in congress during pro forma session?

Further proving the point that what he did isn't against the law, and that Congress is only doing this to block to try to block yet another Obama deed, strictly to try to destroy him and cost him the election. They could give a care less about the people, as long as they screw him over, at all cost. In this instance, I applaud Obama for his actions.

[TheRealVille]

He finally has me to a point to where I can hold my nose and vote for him. He finally grew a backbone, and stood up to Boner, Bitch, and the boys. I do still lean toward Romney a little bit, for now.

[Hoot Gibson]

Further proving the point that what he did isn't against the law, and that Congress is only doing this to block to try to block yet another Obama deed, strictly to try to destroy him and cost him the election. They could give a care less about the people, as long as they screw him over, at all cost. In this instance, I applaud Obama for his actions.

The president does not have the authority to declare that the Senate is in recess when the Senate is in session. Obama's Justice Department understands this but their boss and a few of his supporters don't seem to know the president's legal limit or they simply do not care. There is nothing, using Obama's (and your) "logic" to prevent Obama from making Saturday and Sunday appointments and declare that Congress was in recess.

If Republicans show a backbone and challenge this affront to the Constitution in court, it will be a slam dunk decision, with the Supreme Court reading the testimony of Obama's own Justice Department back to him. This is the kind of issue where patriotic Senate Democrats should make the outrage bipartisan in the interest of maintaining the balance of power intended by the authors of our Constitution. This is how totalitarian regimes are born.

[nky]

I don't know. I never smoked AstroTurf. ~Tug McGraw, when asked if he preferred grass or AstroTurf, April 1974

[vundy33]

Who hasnt drank? Of course i started the other thread because i wanted to know what other people thought. I havent drink anything in almost 6 months, and before that its was almost a year, ive drank a drank or two here and there but i havent even been buzzed since i was 22 years old, almost 6 years ago. My partying days are all over. Ive grown up, but pot smokers dont.
My personal opinion on alcohol is that i dont have one. I could care less if prohibition comes back. Im all for never seeing another drunk driver killing helpless families. As you said, and i agree with, alcohol is just as bad and one is not worse than the other.
I understand what your trying to explain and how marijuana shouldnt be illegal when things such as tobacco and alcohol are, but why add to the down fall of this countries youth, because after all the majority of pot users will be young kids.

My pet sin is lusting over women with huge boobies.

Seriously? That's one of the most retarded things I've seen from you. Well, since I used to smoke, and still do from time to time but ALOT less often, I'm not grown up?

You haven't even smoked it...you have no right to judge people who have or do man. It's fucking ridiculous.

[TheRealVille]

If God didn't create us then surely we sprang up out of a primordial soup of amino acids with the help of being struck by lightning. Anybody else but me find the irony between that theory and the methods of Dr. Frankenstein amusing? Liberal colleges are where we get all these liberal media types. Hence, the honeymoon between the liberal politician (democrats) and the left media. This is why republicans (conservatives=a belief in God) can't get a break and the dems (the party of special interest groups/minorities) can do no wrong.

Yet you have no trouble believing that God always was, without a start of his own.

Mark Twain: "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

[TheRealVille]

The president does not have the authority to declare that the Senate is in recess when the Senate is in session. Obama's Justice Department understands this but their boss and a few of his supporters don't seem to know the president's legal limit or they simply do not care. There is nothing, using Obama's (and your) "logic" to prevent Obama from making Saturday and Sunday appointments and declare that Congress was in recess.

If Republicans show a backbone and challenge this affront to the Constitution in court, it will be a slam dunk decision, with the Supreme Court reading the testimony of Obama's own Justice Department back to him. This is the kind of issue where patriotic Senate Democrats should make the outrage bipartisan in the interest of maintaining the balance of power intended by the authors of our Constitution. This is how totalitarian regimes are born.

(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday defended President Barack Obama's controversial recess appointments to two agencies, releasing a detailed legal analysis of why the appointments passed constitutional muster.

The legal opinion followed furious complaints from Senate Republicans who accused Obama of trampling the Constitution and sidestepping the Senate confirmation process when he installed a new chief at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.

Republicans blocked Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray to head the recently established consumer bureau, which they oppose as an excessive government intrusion on the financial industry. The bureau was set up after the 2008 financial crisis and Democrats argue it is needed to keep tabs on the industry.

The fight over appointments goes back more than a century and has escalated in recent years as more and more nominees have been blocked. Democrats in the Senate first sought to use short breaks to bar then President George W. Bush from making recess appointments and now Republicans have done the same to Obama.

However, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to the president as well as government agencies, said Obama was within his constitutional authority to make appointments when the Senate was briefly away.

"We conclude that while Congress can prevent the president from making any recess appointments by remaining continuously in session and available to receive and act on nominations, it cannot do so by conducting pro forma sessions during a recess," the opinion said.

A legal cloud has hung over whether the appointments were constitutional because the Senate at the time was holding brief so-called pro forma sessions every three days, which Republicans thought would block Obama from making recess appointments.

The White House had previously argued that the Senate began its holiday break on December 17 and would not be back until January 23, thus enabling Obama to make the recess appointments.

"The Senate as a body does not uniformly appear to consider its recess broken by pre-set pro forma sessions," the 23-page opinion said, authored by Virginia Seitz, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

She also said that the pro forma sessions have lasted only seconds and that the "purpose of these sessions avowedly is not to conduct business," noting that messages to the Senate were not accepted during those meetings.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/1...EA20120112

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions — some with as few as one member present — have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said Obama has endangered the nation’s systems of checks and balances, and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says the appointments are a very grave decision by an autocratic White House.

Senate Republicans have been using their ability to block or stall Senate confirmation of some regular nominees as a way to curb agencies they believe have taken or are poised to take actions they disagree with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/w...story.html


There goes your opinion down the drain.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Seriously? That's one of the most retarded things I've seen from you. Well, since I used to smoke, and still do from time to time but ALOT less often, I'm not grown up?

You haven't even smoked it...you have no right to judge people who have or do man. It's fucking ridiculous.

smoke weed everyday....