How congressional Republicans subvert the Constitution

U.S. Rep. Diane Black, a Republican from Tennessee, has announced she will sponsor a House resolution condemning President Obama for using “recess appointments” to fill vacant slots at the National Labor Relations Board and at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Here’s how she put it in her press release Tuesday:

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” said Black.  “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution.  No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test.  I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

Let’s look at that last sentence once again, shall we?

“I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

Return to Washington from where? From the recess that they’re not having?

And why can’t the House consider that resolution say, today, three days after Black sent out that release? Because they’re still not in session to do the nation’s business, and haven’t been since before Christmas?

Later in her press release, the congresswoman registers the following complaint:

“… the NLRB appointments were jammed through by the president before the Senate even had the chance to consider the appointees.  Their names were only put forward on December 15th, a mere two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday.”

Again, “a mere two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday”? You don’t say,

Black’s statement further complains about “an affront to the Constitution.” Let’s look at that a little more closely as well:

The Senate was given the power to advise and consent on appointments as a means of ensuring that the president appoints qualified people. That authority was never intended to be twisted into a tool for forcing federal agencies to stop doing business, which Senate Republicans admit is their goal. By refusing to fill those vacancies — by refusing to even allow a vote on filling those vacancies — they are trying to shut down agencies they don’t like.

Nothing in the Constitution gives them that authority. Nothing.

(Without new board appointees, the NLRB would not have a quorum and thus could not operate or make decisions. Without a director, the CFPB could not carry out many of its legal duties as well.)

As insurance against such abuse by Congress, the drafters of the Constitution gave the executive branch the power to appoint officials for limited terms whenever Congress went into recess and was not available to do its job. By any legitimate definition, Congress has been in recess since before Christmas and remains in recess today, as Black inadvertently acknowledges in her statement.

By pretending that it is never in recess, Congress is trying to permanently strip the executive branch of its recess-appointment powers. Never again can a president make such appointments, because never again will Congress admit it is in recess. Like the use of  advise and consent to shut down agencies, it is an attempted de facto rewriting of the Constitution itself.

(And yes, Democrats used that same technique to block recess appointments under President Bush. The only thing you can say in their favor is that at least they were attempting to block nominees they did not like — a legitimate use of their constitutional authority — rather than trying to shut down entire agencies.)

It is certainly fair to argue that with his response, President Obama is himself stretching if not exceeding his constitutional authority. Under the circumstances, however, his only alternative would be to do nothing and allow the legislative branch to illegally poach on executive functions and permanently if unofficially alter the Constitution.

It is not a good situation.

– Jay Bookman

553 comments Add your comment

Matti

January 13th, 2012
11:10 am

Return to Washington from where? From the recess that they’re not having?

Hahahaha! Good question! What a bunch of tools…. (And by “tools,” I mean tools of the corporations they protect from oversight at our expense.) I’m sure my GOP Koch-sugging Congressweasel will be echoing Rep. Black’s ridiculous sentiment any minute now. They’re like a frog choir on a hot summer night, you know.

Normal

January 13th, 2012
11:17 am

Turn-about is fair play, I always say…

USinUK

January 13th, 2012
11:17 am

“Return to Washington from where? From the recess that they’re not having?”

:lol:

some people are just not blessed with self-awareness …

or the common sense that god gave a goat.

Brad Spencer

January 13th, 2012
11:17 am

Should skunks ever even mention the “smell test?

Adam

January 13th, 2012
11:18 am

My favorite part is this: “No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. ”

I think the whole “pro forma session” thing is much more rancid. The President has basically declared that what they are doing doesn’t count as being in session. It is fun political theater to see the Republicans fight this.

And for the “Tu quoque” people, I didn’t support the idea when Harry Reid did it back in 2007 either.

Paul

January 13th, 2012
11:18 am

No argument here.

I’ll go one further than Rep Black. If Pres Obama violated his oath of office then why doesn’t Rep Boehner, after that stirring, soundbite-filled statement condemning Pres Obama, offer articles of impeachment? Or at the least have one of his committees hold hearings?

Because it’s all political hot-air theatre, that’s why.

Let the Rushbots begin.

USinUK

January 13th, 2012
11:18 am

“Under the circumstances, however, his only alternative would be to do nothing and allow the legislative branch to illegally poach on executive functions and permanently if unofficially alter the Constitution”

advise … consent … and ride roughshod.

President O Rocks

January 13th, 2012
11:19 am

great article, jay; thanks for telling it like it is

Big Brother

January 13th, 2012
11:20 am

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So, what’s the problem? And just remember, what goes around comes around.

Erwin's cat

January 13th, 2012
11:21 am

They are both wrong…but given the absolute and vast power given to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…I’m in camp with the right on this.

Adam

January 13th, 2012
11:24 am

Erwin: but given the absolute and vast power given to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…I’m in camp with the right on this.

Propose to repeal it then. Hell, they could pass a repeal bill in the house and then go “See! We voted on something!” like they did with repealing the ACA.

Peadawg

January 13th, 2012
11:26 am

“Return to Washington from where? From the recess that they’re not having?”

:LOL:

In all honestly, this just seems like politics to me. Both sides do it to each other. And karma is a btch.

Peadawg

January 13th, 2012
11:26 am

:lol:

There we go…

Jay

January 13th, 2012
11:29 am

So in essence, Erwin, you’re endorsing extra-constitutional means to achieve your end. You think it’s OK to in effect abolish a legally established agency simply by refusing to allow a vote on its leadership. In effect, you’re giving 41 senators the power to undo legislation passed by majorities in both houses and signed into law by the president.

That is anarchy.

Granny Godzilla

January 13th, 2012
11:29 am

I would thing that the

“absolute and vast power given to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”

would make all good Americans happy.

That is of course if they have nothing to hide….

Guy Incognito

January 13th, 2012
11:33 am

“In a little publicized move designed to take on President George W. Bush’s use of recess appointments for key governmental posts, Democrats are conducting special sessions during the holiday season to ensure the Senate is not prevented from exercising its “advise and consent” role for presidential appointments.”

I know you pointed this out Jay, but I thought it gemain to the discussion

mm

January 13th, 2012
11:33 am

I’m glad Obama finaly called them on this. Too bad Bush and his merry band of misfits didn’t have enough sense to do the same.

Guy Incognito

January 13th, 2012
11:34 am

Oops, “germane”

mm

January 13th, 2012
11:36 am

“I’m in camp with the right on this.”

So you like paying 30% interest on your credit card?

Quagmire

January 13th, 2012
11:37 am

Jay,

By looking at it, it didn’t pass the smell test. By touching it, it didn’t pass the sound test. These are the tricks of a socialist!!!!!

TaxPayer

January 13th, 2012
11:39 am

Has the Congresswoman from Tenneessee requested a news conference just as soon as she returns from her non-recess recess in order to explain what she meant by recess.

liberalefty

January 13th, 2012
11:40 am

wheres HERMAN CAIN when we need him?

Matti

January 13th, 2012
11:41 am

…but given the absolute and vast power given to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…

Given the absolute and vast power of the freaking BANKSTERS to ruin our *bleeping* LIVES, I not only want a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau watching their every sleazy, deceitful, money-grubbing move, but I want the Bureau to have the power to HANG those thieving thugs on live television, too!

Paul

January 13th, 2012
11:41 am

Just a couple days ago when this was discussed, the blog was bombarded with “the vacancy has to OCCUR while Congress is in recess” and endless variations of “they are SO in recess and what don’t you understand about all these reasons I’m posting?!!!?”

Where have all our Constitutional champions gone?

Even if comments are scarce, Jay, please leave this up for a long time before another topic. I wanna see if they can bear to restrain themselves. I actually hope they don’t, ’cause I’m in the mood for comedy Friday!

USinUK

January 13th, 2012
11:45 am

“So you like paying 30% interest on your credit card?”

it’s not a bug, it’s a FEATURE.

Erwin's cat

January 13th, 2012
11:45 am

Jay – may have misstated a bit, I think they are both wrong, but not a fan of the CFPB as currently structure…and that’s where I side with the right…As far as the political gamesmanship goes both sides are guilty of corrupting and gaming the system

mm – I don’t have any CC debt

Adam – I hope they do repeal it

USinUK

January 13th, 2012
11:46 am

Matti – raucous applause!

Welcome to the Occupation

January 13th, 2012
11:46 am

Jay: By refusing to fill those vacancies — by refusing to even allow a vote on filling those vacancies — they are trying to shut down agencies they don’t like.

Nothing in the Constitution gives them that authority. Nothing.

Note the utter silence of the cons here in providing any defense of this basic fact.

This – basic – fact is what the cons cannot refute.

Silence …. deafening …

getalife

January 13th, 2012
11:49 am

Now our President wants to shrink government.

This is a Clinton strategy to find a gop issue and run on it.

It does not stand a chance to pass in congress but does show he is listening to President Clinton.

liberalefty

January 13th, 2012
11:50 am

wheres the “christian” conservatives at, u know the ones who come here claiming to be sucessful business owners? lol… i love their online personas!

Erwin's cat

January 13th, 2012
11:52 am

“The Republican senators who had resisted the appointment of the director want three changes to the bureau: the right for Congress to review its budget; an agency management with a board rather than a single leader; and a method for ensuring that bureau’s actions do not produce bank failures” – the economist

getalife

January 13th, 2012
11:55 am

You should know by now that cons are horrible sore losers and never get over losing.

Paulo977

January 13th, 2012
11:55 am

Matti
want the Bureau to have the power to HANG those thieving thugs on live television, too
__________________________
Cheers from the ‘undersclassers”!!!

md

January 13th, 2012
11:57 am

Kind of comical to bitch about a precedent that was set for them……..and that is part of the problem. Congress has become nothing more than a tit-for-tat room full of children.

The dems set and used this process and now want to bitch about it…..same goes for both sides using the “nuclear” option. As things stand, I see nothing good coming from any of it.

Peadawg

January 13th, 2012
11:57 am

Strawman

January 13th, 2012
11:58 am

“(And yes, Democrats used that same technique to block recess appointments under President Bush. The only thing you can say in their favor is that at least they were attempting to block nominees they did not like — a legitimate use of their constitutional authority — rather than trying to shut down entire agencies.)”

Jay, does the fact that you made this a parenthetical statement suggest anything to you? You seem not to recognize how much dirty pool is played by both parties.

Stephenson Billings

January 13th, 2012
12:00 pm

“So you like paying 30% interest on your credit card?”

If you don’t have any credit card debt, then you don’t pay any interest. If you don’t like the interest your card company charges, change cards. Since when is it the federal government’s job to tell banks how much interest they can charge?

md

January 13th, 2012
12:02 pm

“So you like paying 30% interest on your credit card?”

Higher rates are in direct relation to the wonderful bill passed when the dems had all the numbers……look it up.

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:03 pm

If both parties are so bad why are there still partisan Americans?

Is it my party is less corrupt than your party?

That sounds like children arguing.

RB from Gwinnett

January 13th, 2012
12:03 pm

found this on rawstory.com…

“In an effort to block President Obama’s recess appointments, Republicans have been using a tactic known as “pro forma” sessions, or sessions of Congress that are mere formality. During a pro forma session, Congress is gaveled in, the pledge of allegiance is recited, and the session is immediately adjourned. Democrats used a similar tactic to block President George W. Bush’s recess appointments, but they failed.”

Guess it depends what you define as “in session” doesn’t it?

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

January 13th, 2012
12:04 pm

Well, we don’t need no stinking protection from credit card cos. Especially if your credit ain’t good enough to get a credit card. Walk away from three or four little bills and you’re ruint for life. There ought to be a law.

And the worst part is the Boner is going to come on TV after he finishes vacation and bawl again. I can’t hardly stand that. I mean, those big tears streaming down that orange face is just too much to take.

That’s all I got to say. Lunch time everybody.

Strawman

January 13th, 2012
12:04 pm

“So you like paying 30% interest on your credit card?”

What ever happened to the concept of usury? Greed is the root of much evil.

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:04 pm

Dear Jay, with all due respect this is a major “oops” moment for you. The House is in recess. House recess does not matter for appointments, which the Senate has to approve. The Senate is not in recess.

Not that technicalities of law matter with leftists.

Stephenson Billings

January 13th, 2012
12:05 pm

“Nothing in the Constitution gives them that authority. Nothing.”

Nothing in the Constitution give the President authority to do recess appointments when Congress, per its rules, says its not in recess.

There’s nothing in the Constitution for specific reasons why Congress would block a nominee. Heck, they could block him because they think he’s ugly.

Butch Cassidy

January 13th, 2012
12:06 pm

liberallefty – “wheres HERMAN CAIN when we need him?”

Anywhere but with his wife if he’s consistent. :)

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:07 pm

Of course, the illegality of the appointments – for an agency whose budget is not subject to congressional review and whose funding is automatic and practically unlimited and which has no controlling board of directors, nor any other element responsive to voters – is fully consistent with the governing theories of all true Marxists.

Stephenson Billings

January 13th, 2012
12:07 pm

Ragnar, I was about the say the same thing. Kudos.

Real Scootter

January 13th, 2012
12:07 pm

That sounds like children arguing

Kinda like on this blog getalife? :lol:

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:08 pm

Really rag,

The senate is not there to block it so it is in recess.

Get over it.

The President kept his promise to work without a broken congress.

You lost/

iRun

January 13th, 2012
12:09 pm

@Quagmire -

Ha! I had the same thought, “How can she knows what it smells like by looking at it? Can I hear something by tasting it?”

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:09 pm

Real Scootter.

Like on most blogs .

It does make it fun tho :)

Jay

January 13th, 2012
12:10 pm

Try again, Rags.

The Senate is not in “recess” because the GOP House refused its permission for the Senate to recess. That’s how the Constitution sets things up:

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

carlosgvv

January 13th, 2012
12:11 pm

This is precisely what you would expect from a Party owned by Big Business. For obvious reasons, Corporations do not want us to have a NLRB. Therefore, they have instructed their political lackeys to stop it from operating any way they can. Unfortunately, most Republican voters are so anti-Obama they will gladly let Business walk all over them and will believe any lie the Republicans tell them.

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:12 pm

Dear Jay @ 12:10, exactly right. The Senate is not in recess, because the House declined to grant permission. What part of that is confusing? Or are you acknowledging the illegality of the appointments?

Matti

January 13th, 2012
12:12 pm

Ragnilly,

You’d have a point if our Congressmen worked for us instead of the bankers. Somewhere in this vast sea of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, somebody needs to look out for lil’ ol’ paycheck-to-paycheck working schmucks. I know your Darwinistic philosphy of letting lesser people DIE (in the His Holy Name, Amen) opposes the very idea what somebody, somewhere, who receives my tax money should look out for ME once in awhile, but dagnabbit, I think it’s a good idea!

Stephenson Billings

January 13th, 2012
12:13 pm

“The President kept his promise to work without a broken congress.”

Ah, so two wrongs make a right. Gotcha. So much for the rule of law. Then again, don’t think that really mattered to the current President.

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:14 pm

If government knows there is a loop hole but does not close that loop hole, did government fail to do it’s job and close that loop hole?

Mary Elizabeth

January 13th, 2012
12:14 pm

“By pretending that it is never in recess, Congress is trying to permanently strip the executive branch of its recess-appointment powers.”
—————————————————-
One more example of present day Republican mendacity – of calling “up” “down,” and of believing that citizens are going to continue to buy their spin of “reality.”

Their game plan is to undermine the President, once again, by showing their power to block his legitimate choice, and/or to “starve the beast” of government, further, by removing a federal governmental agency for which they do not care.

In either case, such noble aspirations. . .
——————————————————————————————————–

“It is certainly fair to argue that with his response, President Obama is himself stretching if not exceeding his constitutional authority. Under the circumstances, however, his only alternative would be to do nothing and allow the legislative branch to illegally poach on executive functions and permanently if unofficially alter the Constitution.”

Does not this decision by President Obama make blatantly evident, to all, that he is a strong president who has deep resources of moral courage, exercised for our nation’s benefit?
If not, then something is amiss in one’s perceptions.

liberalefty

January 13th, 2012
12:15 pm

sorry, RAGS go whine somewhere else….want some cheese?

Real Scootter

January 13th, 2012
12:15 pm

It does make it fun tho

I find it entertaining too getalife!
I just don’t comment to much because I wind up having to put my foot in my mouth!

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:15 pm

Dear Matti @ 12:12, good afternoon, we disagree. Congressmen who enact laws, other than those laws that punish fraud or punish collusion, do not work for us – they are doing the bidding of the big corporations that attempt to restrain their smaller competitors, who cannot afford compliance with the unnecessary bureaucrat strictures.

Paul

January 13th, 2012
12:15 pm

Okay, cons from yesteryear – if you’re multitasking and seeing if Rush is going to provide you some talking point ammo, here’s a link to get you started for your reasoned rebuttals:

http://www.theconservativereview.com/tag/richard-cordray/

Note: I really get a kick out of how the author, in his headline, admitted it was, in fact, a ‘recess’ appointment.

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:16 pm

SB,

Yes, it is fair game.

Deal with it.

Constitution trumps silly congressional stunts.

Road Scholar

January 13th, 2012
12:16 pm

Big Brother:”Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate..”

So what does the House have to do with it…it states “Senate”. The Senate allegedly has been in session…but one person (repub)returns every 3 days to allegedly keep it in session. Where was the quorum? In my opinion, both houses are out of session.

ty webb

January 13th, 2012
12:16 pm

Sad attempt by jay. The senate is not in recess.

RB from Gwinnett

January 13th, 2012
12:16 pm

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

So, when the Senate voted for the completly stupid 2 month extention of the Obama tax rates, the House could have made them return for lack of permission??? And you would have posted a positive “opinion” of them for doing that too, wouldn’t you Jay?

hahahahahahahahahahaha plop!

Jay

January 13th, 2012
12:17 pm

In addition, Rags, I’ll quote an additional piece of Rep. Black’s press release, which I’ll also add to the post above:

“…. the NLRB appointments were jammed through by the president before the Senate even had the chance to consider the appointees. Their names were only put forward on December 15th, a mere two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday.”

” … a mere two days before Senate recessed for the holiday.”

Ahem.

Paul

January 13th, 2012
12:17 pm

“And the worst part is the Boner is going to come on TV after he finishes vacation and bawl again.”

Sorry, Redneck. Rep Boehner isn’t on vacation.

He’s in Congress, making sure a full session is doing the work of the People.

Welcome to the Occupation

January 13th, 2012
12:18 pm

Sad attempt by jay. The senate is not in recess.

The senate IS in recess. So, try again.

RB from Gwinnett

January 13th, 2012
12:18 pm

“This is precisely what you would expect from a Party owned by Big Business.”

Anybody need proof of the partisan nature of this discussion I pointed out below??? There you go ^^^^^^^^^^ !!!!!!!!

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:18 pm

Real Scootter,

“I just don’t comment to much because I wind up having to put my foot in my mouth!”

Well, we can’t be right all the time.

P.J. O'ROURKE

January 13th, 2012
12:19 pm

The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.

finn mccool

January 13th, 2012
12:19 pm

Was it harriet myers the dems were trying to block?

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:19 pm

Dear Jay @ 12:17, if you posit that Rep Black does not know what she is talking about, or that she does not understand the Constitution, you proffer a basis for the argument. If you affirm that the Senate is not in session because Rep Black says it is not, I respectfully observe that the Constitution does not appoint Ms. Black to make that judgment.

liberalefty

January 13th, 2012
12:19 pm

the repubs hate the president so much that they will try to ruin this nation in their quest to win back the presidency…

Joe Hussein Mama

January 13th, 2012
12:21 pm

P. J. O’ROURKE — “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.”

I quoted you with that yesterday. Wasn’t that enough for you, you old potato-nosed lush?

Aquagirl

January 13th, 2012
12:21 pm

sorry, RAGS go whine somewhere else….want some cheese?

Let him stay, I’m just happy we’re in disagreement again. Please don’t spoil my moment.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 13th, 2012
12:22 pm

F. McCool — “Was it harriet myers the dems were trying to block?”

Miers was opposed by *conservatives* IIRC. She then withdrew her name from consideration.

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:22 pm

Of course, from another perspective, now that Obama has set the precedent, I suppose it will be much easier for President Romney to run over the democrat minority in his appointments next year.

liberalefty

January 13th, 2012
12:22 pm

why is BOEHNER SO orange?

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:22 pm

Dear Aquagirl @ 12:21, ha, I salute you

RB from Gwinnett

January 13th, 2012
12:22 pm

“The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate..”

Notice it specifically states “vacancies that may happen during the recess”??? Did these vacancies occur during the recess? (if there was one)

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:24 pm

rag,

No the dems will do the same as the gop did with President Obama.

0311/1811

January 13th, 2012
12:24 pm

JAY:

1) “And yes, Democrats used that same technique to block recess appointments under President Bush. The only thing you can say in their favor is that at least they were attempting to block nominees they did not like — a legitimate use of their constitutional authority — rather than trying to shut down entire agencies.)”

One point:

You know that is such B.S. about shutting down agencies ! The agency continues to function ………. they just don’t have a “Director” for awhile. Happens all of the time. Didn’t that agency “function” months before the recess appointment? Of course it did.

2) “It is certainly fair to argue that with his response, President Obama is himself stretching if not exceeding his constitutional authority. Under the circumstances, however, his only alternative would be to do nothing and allow the legislative branch to illegally poach on executive functions and permanently if unofficially alter the Constitution.”

Two points here:

a) Then why didn’t you entitled the above “Congressional Republicans AND Obama Subvert the Constitution” ? Because in your thinking Obama can do no wrong.

b) This will probably go to the SCOTUS for a definitive ruling. I don’t care which way they rule ……………. because BOTH sides will be bound by it and don’t whine later if you don’t like what a Republican president does.

Peadawg

January 13th, 2012
12:24 pm

“Not that technicalities of law matter with leftists.” – If they aren’t in recess then why the he!! aren’t they working?

:roll:

Touch that thang Four- Doomy with his facts

January 13th, 2012
12:24 pm

mm

January 13th, 2012
11:36 am
“I’m in camp with the right on this.”

So you like paying 30% interest on your credit card?-mm

mm,

Word to the liberals. Perhaps you guys missed it just a few days ago when the news came out that credit card interest rates are at their highest rate in 4 years. Why you might ask? Because the govt got involved and screwed it up even worse. The law of unintended consequences at work yet again. And yet here you guys are once more touting big gubment as the solution via this agency. Oh but the irony of it all.

Oh, and I think bank earnings are also the highest in 4 years consequently. Dems did a great job reining in banks with that legislation a couple of years ago didn’t they???

“Interest rates on new credit card offers hit 15 percent this week for the first time since CreditCards.com started tracking the national average on a weekly basis four years ago.”

The national average had stood at just under 15 percent for the previous two weeks, according to the website’s Weekly Credit Card Rate Report, which also listed the lowest rates found for the previous two weeks at 10.73 percent.

The average rate is composed by surveying 100 of the most popular credit cards in the country, including those offered by leading U.S. financial institutions and other issuers.

The average covers every card category, but does not include “teaser” — or introductory — rates, used to lure consumers into rolling over debts from other cards or signing up for the first time.

CreditCards.com is an online service that helps consumers figure out what type of credit cards may be best for them by comparing information on rates, rewards, and other offerings.

carlosgvv

January 13th, 2012
12:24 pm

RB from Gwinnett – 12:18

So, if you interpret what I’m saying as partisian, that automatically makes it wrong? And, of course, you’re not partisian?

Normal

January 13th, 2012
12:25 pm

Scooter,
” just don’t comment to much because I wind up having to put my foot in my mouth!”

I always knew you were a wise man, like me…a wise man knows he knows nothing at all… :)

Strawman

January 13th, 2012
12:25 pm

I very much like what Huntsman is pushing: term limits for Congress. What does everyone else think?

Stephenson Billings

January 13th, 2012
12:25 pm

I would like to see this challenged in the courts if only to get things cleared up. Heck, even the Clinton justice department and the Elena Kagen justice department agreed that pro-forma sessions means that Congress is, in fact, in session. Only the current Holder justice department thinks otherwise.

0311/1811

January 13th, 2012
12:26 pm

P.S. to Jay:

Why did Obama previously support the Republican Constitutional position on this very issue ?

Hummmmm ………………… ?

getalife

January 13th, 2012
12:26 pm

Did ya’ll know willard’s dad was born in Mexico.

Better check willard’s long form birth certificate because he is a illegal immigrant or an anchor baby.

0311/1811

January 13th, 2012
12:26 pm

Stephenson Billings:

………. and so did Obama. Thank you.

larry

January 13th, 2012
12:27 pm

This is just another create a crisis moment that the Republicans specialize in. I think most of the American people are getting pretty fed up with it.

The perfect solution, vote everyone with a R out.

Problem solved.

Normal

January 13th, 2012
12:27 pm

Touch that thang Four- Doomy with his facts

January 13th, 2012
12:24 pm

The moral to that story is to never carry a balance over from month to month.

Logical Dude

January 13th, 2012
12:27 pm

Ragnar – for an agency whose budget is not subject to congressional review and whose funding is automatic and practically unlimited and which has no controlling board of directors

hmmm. . can you link to how this is different than other agencies, and how the funding can be unlimited?
I haven’t heard that argument before, so it kind of baffles me.

Stephenson Billings

January 13th, 2012
12:27 pm

“I very much like what Huntsman is pushing: term limits for Congress. What does everyone else think?”

Members of Congress would never agree to neuter themselves that much. Too many career politicians.

Goose Gander

January 13th, 2012
12:27 pm

I can’t wait to hear from all the conservatives who were outraged about the first family in Hawaii when they find out Eric Cantor is on a “official visit” in Turkey. It is nothing more than a sightseeing tour of the middle east. At least the Obama’s spent time and money in AMERICA, instead of spending tax payer dollars in the MIDDLE EAST.

ragnar danneskjold

January 13th, 2012
12:27 pm

Dear Jay, you could easily have had me on your side on this argument, had you not pushed the argument that the appointments are legal. I think they manifestly are not. Nevertheless, I strongly believe all presidential nominees deserve a vote, and would support a procedure that would deem appointments granted if not voted down within 90 calendar days of appointment. I think you go too far in your cultism, even though you have a sound principle behind you.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 13th, 2012
12:29 pm

RB — “Did these vacancies occur during the recess?”

You’re erring in understanding the parlance of the Founders’ time. They expressed concurrencies differently than we do today. They weren’t quite as hung up on deadlines and exact dates and times as we are.

If there’s a recess, and there’s a vacancy extant at any time during the course of the recess, then they would describe the vacancy as occurring *during* the recess, whether the vacancy *commenced* during the recess or not. From the Founders’ perspective, if you have a recess and a vacancy at the same time, then the vacancy occurred *during* the recess.

Those individuals who are trying to advance that hair-splitty “during” argument are simply desperate to come up with a Constitutional argument against what the President has done.