Thursday, January 5, 2012

An Unconstitutional Presidency

What’s new Today

Our #1 story discusses why BHO will lie, cheat and steal to be reelected.  #2 talks about the “recess” appointments Obama has made.  #3 looks at the legality of what Obama’s done.  #4 relates how a group of students in Ohio laughed at “the One.”  #5 is an interesting collection of left wing pundits as they assess what an Obama defeat would do to their dreams.  Finally #6 looks at something new under the sun. 

1.  Why BHO will Lie, Cheat and Steal in the coming election

The future of America depends on electing a new president in 2012, and the best asset for any potential challenger is Barack Obama. His obtuse sense of self-worth will be a shrewd candidate's greatest advantage.

Obama believes that he is a spectacular success, almost godlike in his judgment. All his policies are not only correct, but manifestations of the transcendent, prescient leader he knows himself to be.

He will run, fast and furious, from his record -- but not because it shows him to be less than the greatest leader ever, except for possibly Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln...and even then, only "possibly.”…

Obama is delusional, but so too are those who think he will be reelected. 

2.  Legality of Cordray Appointment

Leaving aside the constitutional questions, there is a potential statutory problem with the legality of the Cordray appointment under Dodd-Frank. Section 1066 of Dodd-Frank provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform the functions of the CFPB under the subtitle transferring authority to the CFPB from the other agencies “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011.” It turns out that section 1011 is a defined term which provides: “The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

This seems to suggest that even if the President might be able to appoint Cordray under the recess power the full grant of statutory authority wouldn’t transfer to the Bureau unless the statutory language was fulfilled as well.

The law doesn’t seem to be an impediment to BHO.  He regularly violates it. 

3.  Is the Senate in Recess?

Article One, section Five of the Constitution states:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days...

This presents a problem for President Obama, who claims to have just made a recess appointment when the Senate is not actually in recess. The Constitution says the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the House's permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity.

There is an argument that pro-forma sessions are just a sham. Obama is not the first to make it. I don't find it very persuasive, but it's an argument that some very smart people make.

Yet in this particular case, in which the House has not consented to a Senate recess, the pro forma session does not seem to be the issue. The Constitution is the issue. Without the consent of the House to adjourn for more than three days, the Senate is in session, whether it wants to be or not.

The only argument left is one that the Obama administration has itself rejected – that a three day “recess” is sufficient for such an appointment.

Hypocrisy abound in this issue.  Reid has come out in support of Obama’s action after using the same tactics in 2007 to stop Bush from making recess appointments. 

4.  Something New in Obama’s Ohio Speech

…Obama goes to Shaker Heights High School. With Obama, these choreographed crowd events have a rigidity, a predictable faux friendliness. He's been doing them so long, even before Oprah helped four years ago….

Then, out of the blue Wednesday, came a tiny incident. A minute moment. There had been no signs of trouble, nothing to reveal that the Real Good Talker's real good talking had lost his touch or control of his sitting subjects. The rest of the speech continued normally. Many there probably didn't even notice.

The president of the United States has said the next line so many times over these 1,080 days of his reign. He says it as a kind of democratic gesture, a compliment to a crowd of American citizens, a public obeisance that the most powerful man in the world is profoundly connected to them.

Obama said, "You inspire me."

And you know how the members of that crowd in the most Democratic district of Ohio responded to that campaigning Democratic president's professed sincerity this time?

They laughed at him…

Its little things like this that confirms what the polls are telling us.  His stage managed stump speech drew laughter rather than cheers. 

5.  The Left Worries: “What if Obama Loses?

It’s a common complaint—we’ve certainly made it over the years—that too much political campaign coverage focuses on the horse race. The packed debate schedule in the current GOP nomination battle has put a bit more focus than usual on the substance of what the candidates are saying, which is good. But even so, most of this coverage has wound up being about whether a given policy position might help or hurt a candidate’s chances of winning. What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? …

If you are a liberal you will despair.  If you are a conservative, you’ll break out the bubbly. 

6.   Something New Under the Sun

A new way of collecting solar energy has polarized scientists around the world and ignited fierce debate on the Internet, where the innovator in question has been called everything from an alien to the agent of a global conspiracy.

Maybe a better title would be an intellectual Hannah Montana. That's because the scientist, Aidan Dwyer, is 13 years old.

This past summer, Aidan won a national science competition with what seemed to be a bright idea: His research appeared to show that solar panels arrayed like the leaves on a tree collect sunlight more efficiently than traditional setups.

Many people on the Web called the Long Island teenager a "genius" who had achieved a true "breakthrough" in solar power. Others praised him for proving that nature's own designs are superior to man's.

But there was one little problem: To prove his hypothesis, Aidan had measured the wrong thing.

As readers figured out the mistake, the Internet went supernova. Commenters and bloggers attacked Aidan with vitriol usually saved for political enemies and the Kardashians. Blogs decried his experiment as "bad science" and "impossible nonsense." Someone called him "an alien—a cool one, though." …

On a recent afternoon, Aidan showed a visitor his newest model, tweaked to respond to his critics: a towering seven-foot tree form adorned with solar panels and painted green. He is now measuring current and power. So far, he said, the tree continues to outperform the traditional panel. "I'm thinking that it could actually change the world."

Here’s hoping he comes up with something. 

No comments:

Post a Comment