In response to:

Obama's Act of Constitutional Disobedience

Joe 145 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 8:22 AM
Oh, they won't discard the Constitution right away. Just a piece at a time.
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 12:07 PM
They've been working on it for about 150 years now. A little here, a bit there. The first time the federal government passed a bill giving money to someone in need they should have been stomped on by the courts.
rmims Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 9:50 PM
That is the reason that Davey Crockett was not was not reelected and ended going off to texas was that he and some other congressmen decided to give federal monies to help rebuild Chicago after it 's first great fire.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the crazy idea that the president has the power to make recess appointments while the Senate is not in recess.

"An interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction," Chief Judge David B. Sentelle wrote....