Eden Hill Journal

Comments, dreams, stories, and rantings from a middle-aged native of Maine living on a shoestring and a prayer in the woods of Maine. My portion of the family farm is to be known as Eden Hill Farm just because I want to call it that and because that's the closest thing to the truth that I could come up with. If you enjoy what I write, email me or make a comment. If you enjoy Eden Hill, come visit.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Maine, United States

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Activist Pres

Question
How does an activist administration get political obstructionist hacks into top positions despite increasing concern in Congress?
Answer

6 Comments:

Blogger Mike said...

Get off your high horse, Bill. Every president makes recess appointments. And every opposition party claims it's illegal and immoral.

The Constitution gives the president the power to make these appointments and every president takes advantage of it. It is a necessary check to prevent the legislative branch from bullying the executive branch. The appointments are temporary until the next time Congress takes a recess.

10:57 AM, January 05, 2006  
Blogger Bill said...

During his two terms in office, President Ronald W. Reagan made 240 recess
appointments, of which 116 were to full-time positions. President George H. W. Bush
made 77 recess appointments during his term of office; 18 were to full-time positions.
President William J. Clinton made 140 recess appointments during his eight years in
office, 95 to full-time positions. During his first term in office, President George W. Bush
made 110 recess appointments, of which 66 were to full-time positions.
Reference: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

3:43 PM, January 05, 2006  
Blogger Bill said...

The claim that the Constitution provided for "recess appointments" as a "necessary check to prevent the legislative branch from bullying the executive branch" is bogus. Recess appointments were provided to alleviate the need to call Congress into session whenever a high office seat became vacant during a Congressional recess. The respect a President has for the Constitution is inversely proportional to the number of recess appointments he makes for any other reason than the original Constitutional intent.

3:53 PM, January 05, 2006  
Blogger Mike said...

"The respect a President has for the Constitution is inversely proportional to the number of recess appointments he makes"

That's bull. The number of recess appointments he makes is directly proportional to the amount of opposition there is in the Senate. Reagan and Bush one had to deal with Democratic Senates as did Clinton for much of his term. Bush II has had to deal with a Republican Senate which has an opposition party that has started using the filibuster to block everything. The democrats are not doing their Senatorial duty of "advising and consenting" by preventing Bush's nominees from even having a vote thus weakening our executive branch. So tell me know who has no respect for the Constitution.

You said even Clinton did it 140 times so I guess that means he has no respect for the Constitution either. I'm not surprised coming from you that Clinton was justified and Bush is just abusing the constitution.

7:15 PM, January 05, 2006  
Blogger Bill said...

You overestimate my respect for Clinton and the Democrats.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the framers of the Constitution wanted the process of choosing people of authority in government to be a shared responsibility? Probably not. Most likely you are the "rubber stamp" type of guy, somehow imagining that the Constitution was written to guarantee the powers of an American dictatorship and a weak Democratic Congress. You're in good company Mike, but I don't sleep in your camp with all your traitor buddies.

7:45 AM, January 06, 2006  
Blogger Mike said...

I'm not in favor of a rubber stamp, but I do think Congress should not have the option of ignoring presidential appointments. When they filibuster appointments that is what they are doing. They have a responsibility to vote on them. When one congressman can raise an objection and keep a nominee from getting out of committee, that is too much power vested in one individual. If they are such horrible candidates, convince the other Senators to vote them down.

And I really wish we could have a discussion once without you calling the Bush Administration "dictators" or "traitors". It's over the top and it makes you sound like a kook. Do you really believe Bush intends to not step down in 2009?

8:49 AM, January 06, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home