by The Rat
PETULANT BOY KING BREAKS AT LEAST THREE PRECEDENTS: SETS UP CLASH WITH CONGRESS
Let the tyranny begin. Congressional leaders said Wednesday that Dear Leader, Lord Barack Hussein Obama, violated at least three separate precedents when he used recess appointment powers to name the controversial Richard Cordray - in defiance of Congress - to head the equally-controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Obama also appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.
All four appointments had been stymied by Congressional Republicans – who claim the Boy King is accruing too much power through these two agencies. (They’re right.)
A clash with Republican lawmakers – who say the action by Obama amounts to a blatant and unconstitutional power grab – is sure to ensue. (They’re right again.)
The Boy King acted just one day after the Senate held session, breaking with three different precedents which say the Senate must be in recess for at least three days before a recess appointment can be made. Ironically, the Hypocrite-in-Chief was a partner to two of those precedents – both during his own time in the Senate, and again in 2010 when one of the Regime’s top constitutional lawyers made the very argument to the Supreme Court.
“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Comrade Obama said in Ohio, drawing applause from
the proletariat his groupies. “When Congress refuses to act – and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as king president to do what I can without them.”
Stop and think about what el capitán is telling us. You too, Obamanites.
“To hell with precedent, the balance of power and the U.S. Constitution; I – and I alone – have not only the sovereign right, but the supreme omniscience – to determine – on my own – what is best for the country – and what puts our people at risk.”
Translation: “I will do whatever I have to do to pander to poor people and the middle class to win reelection. ANYTHING.”
Prior to Lord Obama’s ascendancy to the throne, senators from both parties – as recent as 2008 – said a recess of at least three days is required before a president can use recess appointment powers.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R – KY), saying the move “arrogantly circumvented the American people,” added this:
“Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.”
While Regime mouthpiece Jay Carney (Mr. Claire Shipman) argues that Lord Obama has the right to circumvent Congress with this appointment, three major precedents suggest otherwise:
1. The Clinton administration successfully argued that there must be a recess of at least three days to trigger the recess appointment clause.
2. B. Hussein’s top constitutional attorneys at the Solicitor General’s office also subscribed to the three-day rule in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in 2010.
3. Senate Democrats used pro-forma sessions to stop President Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008.
Said hypocrite-extraordinaire Harry Reid in 2008: “I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made.” Lord Obama was a lowly senator at the time and obviously agreed with Harry then; why not now?
The supreme arrogance of liberal elites never fails to amuse – and sometimes frighten. They, and they alone, know what’s best for the country. (which, truth be told, is them clinging to power.) Democrats have no problem supporting precedent – as long as it serves their needs – but when precedents, laws and that pesky “outdated” Constitution of the United States of America stand in the way of liberal know-it-all-ism? They must be shunted aside.
The ultimate arrogance, of course, is that Lord Obama remains confident that his minions will continue to support his every (totalitarian) move. Sadly – and frighteningly – he is right.
Are fatwas next?