Obama isn't the first president to sidestep the appointment and confirmation process by taking advantage of a clause in the Constitution that allows him to fill open positions while the Senate is in recess. Then why all the hullabaloo? Weigh-in with your thoughts after reading the following article:
Washington standoff
I personally thought that the Senate was trying to hard to take over the power of the President and it would be unjust if they did. I also dont think Obama's tactics for going about certain things leaving the Senate out of vote is necessaily correct as well. I feel that the article expressed the prosepective of what many citizens will feel and how the citizens will react to such drama within the government system. The Democrats should remember their place and stop trying to use blackmail against others. The Senate should try to overstep their boundary and try to veto the President's choice and the President should try to deviate the correct path he should take when he wants action to be delt with.
ReplyDeleteVanessa Rodriguez Period 3
I personally feel like Obama filling in recess appointments is not as big of a deal as the media is making it to be. Republican presidents such as Bush have more than often made recess appointments, but Obama is suddenly put under blast when he decides to appoint Richard Cordaroy. It's true that he has deviated from what the Constitution specifies, but in my opinion, if he has our country's best interest in mind, the media should not be making such a big deal out of the situation.
ReplyDeleteDeshna M.
Period 3
I feel that the President was well within his means to do that. Things were not going well when Congress was in session because of the Republicans blocking everything and using that ability as a tool to get the changes they want in the Dodd-Frank law they want. So the President took advantage of a loophole like any other President would try to do if he wanted to appoint people. He was well within his means to go and do that and as the article pointed out President Bush made 171 recess appointments as well.
ReplyDeleteNilan Gunewardena Period 2
I see these recess appointments as just another cheap trick in a president's arsenal. Both Democrats and Republicans do it, and so it does not especially harm my opinion of Obama. While this practice is unjust, the way it is used, these recess appointments are an important ability of the president. While this power may be abused, Harry Reid is taking his opposition too far, which may be harmful to our system of Checks and Balances. Congress should not be able to deny Recess Appointments in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteKendall Mayfield Period 2
The United States Constitution clearly states that the executive branch has the power to carry out recess appointments-allowing them to keep these positions until the next Senate session ends. However, the Senate decided that they would aim to extinguish this ability of the president because they desired to remain ahead in their battle for power. In order to prevent this from happening, President Obama used the White House counsel to solve matters that are considered significant enough to be dealt with by the Justice Department. Somewhere in their battle amongst one another, both the legislative and the executive branches lost sight of one of the most important foundations of the American government; checks and balances. The introduction of their capability to veto or deny certain abilities and decisions of the other branch was created to prevent tyranny. Unfortunately, they have both manipulated this idea in order to secure the power to carry out the laws and reforms they believe should be part of the government. Both branches have attempted to oppress the liberties of the other; which is exactly what the basis of the government was fighting so hard to avoid. In my opinion, President Obama and the Senate have both lost sight of the ideals that are crucial to the stability and justness of the government and are both at fault.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Banks
Period 3
The article definetly demonstrates the drama that is occuring now within the White House. In my opinion, I feel that President Obama's decision is acceptable to all means, but the public is just not attaining well to that pronouncement. I believe that the President has every right to appoint the people. Going back, Former President, George W. Bush made a number of recess appointments as well. This is not anything neww, so President Obama has every right to appoint and take advantage of the situation that has transpired.
ReplyDeleteMariam Kamal
Period 2
The legislative branch has gone too far in their denial of the right of recess appointments. Obama does have the right to these appointments, and the article even states that Reid was conned into continuing the blockade. However, it is sounding more like a fight between Republicans and Democrats and their ideas rather than the correct course of action. The parties are blinded by their own beliefs of right and wrong that they are not taking the Constitution into consideration as the leading necessity of the decision. The article puts the parties on blast and blames the Republicans for all the chaos rather than discuss what compromise can be made. Yes, Obama should be able to make appointments and the Senate is not handling the situation correctly, but the media is creating more hostility in the situation by forcing the people to believe that a single party is to blame instead of displaying the entire situation.
ReplyDelete-- Madison Pickham, period 3
I think that Obama and the Senate are both wrong becuase they both demonstrated the unfairness of our government branches through this process. The fact that the Senate attempted for more power than the president, is wrong. Also, that President Obama did not rely on the Justice Department to see the constitutional importance of the recess appointment. Both of them seems to seek to protect their own power or go beyond more. This article mentions the constituition because, the executive and legislative branch did not take use of the checks and balances which is like what is the point of having it if our national government is not going to use it correctly.
ReplyDeleteMichelle
Period 3
It seems to me that people are mostly upset with the fact that Obama refused to go through the Justice Department and instead used his white house counsel. I do agree that it might not have been smartest choice to use this route in terms of how the public would react; however, I do believe Obama should have the right to make recess appointments as long as he isn't abusing this power. Since the senate will not have any serious meetings until the 23rd, Obama should be able to enforce his constitutional right to fill open positions during the recess's between the Senate's sessions.
ReplyDelete-- Destiny Saleem, period 2
I think the Senate really pushing buttons when not allowing the president practice his recess appointments. The president should do it when the time calls for it and that is why he is doing what he is doing because it is his job. Obama also doesn't want to look as bad as President Bush did during his administration by tacking so many appointments.The senate is just making it more difficult for things to get done and it makes the president look bad when all he is doing is combating a problem they created.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Barragan
Period: 3
I feel as if President Obama did test his boundaries when he waited until the Senate was out of session to make appointments but I also feel as if he had the right to do so. Like Destiny said, the President isn't abusing his Constitutional power so we should be okay with it. I also agree with Maddie Pickham in her reasoning that the true dilemma is between Republicans and Democrats, rather than Obama's current actions. President Obama is in fact our president and by holding his position in the executive branch of our government, he is well within his rights to make such decisions and appointments. I also like Maddie's point where she says that the media is blowing this out of proportion and making it seem much more threatening than it actually is.
ReplyDeleteYasmine Andrawis
Period 2
The United States government is run on a system of checks and balances. This ensures a safeguard of any one majority, in this case the senate and the president, does not gain more power over another. The issue with appointments and who is responsible appears to be a struggle between the legislative and executive branch om who has the most influence. Congress is at fault for attempting to find a loop hole in which the president cannot choose any new appointments and the president here is to blame as well for not handling this issue in the most effective manner. All in all, the issue of appointments seem to be a small step in one of the branches of government is trying to take in order to gain just a little more influence over the other.
ReplyDeleteRicardo Campos
Period: 3
In my opinion, I think Obama was just trying to do his job, he should be able to make his own recess appointments as long as he doesn't go overboard like Bush did. Reid also took his job too far by trying to take away the power of the president to appointment his own recess appointments; basically Reid is corrupting the use of checks and balances because he is trying to gain more authority than the president which would be unfair.
ReplyDeleteBrandi Henry
per. 3
When Senator Harry Reid set the tradition for recess appointments, it limited the power of the president. By doing so, it tipped the balance between the three branches of government. The main controversy is directed towards President Obama and his belief that going about situations his way--through White House actions--without the checking of the other branches--the Justice Department, is alright. But, it is not. His action of using the White House as a "legal mouthpiece" contradicts the Constitution and its ideal of checks and balance. Both Congress and President Obama must work together to form appointees and make legal actions. Thus, if the government is stable, then the liberty of the people is stable.
ReplyDelete--Michelle Young, Period 2
Both branches are just doing their jobs, but i feel as if human nature is starting to play into the situation. One branch is trying to gain more power by attempting to do more of their job ( exec= recess appointments; senate= control amount to be appointed). The senate is finding loopholes into the contstitution where they don't have a limit on how many sessions they hold so that the president may not appoint during their [senate] recess. And still the president should be able to srongly challenge the senates' veto's. It also seems like a political fight between the democrats and republicans, when both would probably do the same to the other if the positions where switched aorund.
ReplyDeleteKim Hao
period 2
The President clearly took the most expedient way to avoid oppostion to accomplish his agenda. However, instead of taking his issues to the Justice Department, Obama has repeatedly turned to the White House Counsel for help, showing that if he has no support in one place, he will ask another to give him what he wants. His request is valid, and should constitutionally work out in his favor, but the precedent Obama would be setting is one that shows our government will turn to whomever needed to lend aid to win a fight.
ReplyDelete--Lauren Griffin, p. 2
Honestly I do not see why the media is making such a big deal over President Obama doing something the Constitution allows him to do. President Obama is simply trying to get his executive voice heard and if this is the only way that will happen, let it be. Former President Bush-and many other former Presidents- did the same thing as President Obama is presently doing and the media did notngo crazy over those stories like they are going crazy iver these. If this is the way President Obama must make his ideas on how to help America heard, then let it be.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Straight- Period 3
I feel that Bush and Obama are not entirely comparable. But it can be said that roles of America's government are being ignored in the fight between Republican and Democrat, shown through the power acquired in the different sectors. Separation of powers, along with checks and balances, was meant to increase the difficulty of majority tyranny, which is being attempted by the legislative and executive branches. Whereas a Democrat maintains the presidency (for now, of course), the Senate, which was the only choice for a say in the president's actions, is chock-full of Republicans, bound and set on refusing anything that came from the president's desk. His response, in turn, is to bend the constitutional rules. Blinded by the desire to prevent the other side from doing what they believe is unjust, their solution is to gain even more power, forgetting the main purpose of separation of powers- inability to form majorities- and using the power of checks and balances to bring the governmental machine to a standstill. Both parties are at fault for attempted usurpation of power for petty, opinionated fights over right vs. wrong. But one thing's for certain, even after all this time, our checks and balances still hold up strong.
ReplyDeleteHaley Shepherd, Period 2
The United States president is constitutionally permitted to fill open positions while the Congress is on vacation (recess) by the help of his Justice Department. However, President Obama had proposed to Harry Reid and the Congress to create the new agency--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--and appoint Richard Cordray as the director of the new agency. Debate persisted over the creation of both the agency itself yet alone the appointee of choice. With the state of mind of congressional disapproval, President Obama and his Justice Department waited for the opportunity to take advantage of their executive power to appoint when congress was on recess thus bypassing congressional approval. However, congress was not on vacation and was not officially in recess upon Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray and the congress was to return the next day. Constitutional? Justice Department deems it within executive authority hence its legitimacy. Could Obama have waited? Made a phone call? Hmm...
ReplyDeleteMichael Tomey, Period 2
I believe that congress has taken on too much power. If Bush made recess appointments for six years without any problems and then was lets go of such power because of Reid, then that is his fault. Although Bush forfeited executive power by doing that, Obama should be able to reinstate that power and move on what he believes is best for the government as many issues are being tackled in Washington.
ReplyDeleteSam Yassa per. 3
This issue really appears more as a typical battle between democrats and republicans, I mean the majority of the republican senate is attempting to one up our democratic president by restricting his ability and constitutional right to assign recess appointments. Although Obama seems to be pushing his luck, he does have the best intentions and by all means should have the right to do so. I mean Bush was able to make 171 recess appointments, and he was conveniently a republican "president" so I'm not sure why it is such a big deal for our president to go about his job and fix our country like he is trying to do so.
ReplyDelete-Pattie Benavides, Per.2
It is the president's duty to fill the vacancies while Congress is at recess yet Reid's "temporary" plan (which now is seemingly turning permanent), I feel, is limiting the presidential power. A system of checks and balances was set, after all, so that no one group was given any amount of overbearing power, yet it seems that the Senate is becoming more powerful while limiting the president of his duty. If the Constitution permits the president to fill in open positions during the off-months, then I don't quite see why the issue is being made a huge deal. President Obama is simply trying to do his job as it has been done in the past 150 years of the republic. Although both powers feel they are correct in doing their own jobs, I feel one is trying to overpower the other because the Senate is trying to take some power away from the executive branch. Ultimately, President Obama should be able to go against the Senate and presume with his presidential duties (that have been in effect for the past 150 years) simply because it is his job. It shouldn't be made such a big deal since Reid's plan was only meant to be temporary.
ReplyDeleteSahil Dhaliwal period 3
I feel that this is a mess that should be avoided and is somewhat unecessary. However, once completing the article I believe that this problem is far to late to fix and that Obama had no other choice but to use the off apointments to his advantage. Not to mention that it said the president is allowed to do this anyway. In addition I also feel that this is a key factor oh human nature, how congress is trying to limit the power of the president for there own personal gain. It has also come to my attention that they are both overdoing the ability of checks and balances and not using it for it's rightful purpose. So in conclusion, I agree with Obama decsion because there is nothing that says he cannot do this. However at the same time, this seems like this issue isn't as huge as there making it to be.
ReplyDeleteQuinton Goodman P.3
I believe President Obama did not test his boundaries when he waited until the Senate was out of session to make appointments. He is the President and according to the constitution, he has the power to fill open positions during the recess. The President should do it when it is the absolute time for it whether people agree or disagree. It is his duty as president.
ReplyDelete-Yostina Halaka
P. 3
This situation occurs due to the Senate wanting to control itself and prevent encroachment by the president. Although Reid and Obama are both democrats, each one of them wants to keep their power. The right thing for Obama to do would be to make a case with the Judicial branch, but because he does not, he is not following the checks and balance system and is therefore at fault. However, the legislative branch is not completely correct. They took advantage of a loophole which led to Obama taking a unwise stance, which leads to this whole ordeal
ReplyDelete~Nathan Shen
Period 3
I think Sahil has made a good point. Obama has done nothing out of the ordinary in making recess appointments. It's the Senate that has manipulated the Constitution by keeping themselves in a phony, perpetual session so as to block a perfectly legitimate constitutional action of the President.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great comments, everyone!
A major conflict in this dilemma is simply the fact that the Republicans and Democrats can not seem to be on equal, or at least compromising terms. According to the Constitution, the president does in fact have the power to fill open positions in Congress during recess, so Obama is not necessarily wrong in trying to do so. However, the Republican Senate can not be put to blame for this whole blocking the power of the executive branch, since Democrat Reid blocked out power of Republican President Bush. I believe if anyone is at blame, it would be Reid, due to the fact that he has ended the president's Constitutional right for recess appointments. However, instead of Obama trying to reason with Reid, he instead decided to create an additional loophole to avoid the Senate by using the White House counsel. This is where Obama is at fault. I believe the best solution is for Reid to give back the power for recess appointments since they are authorized in the constitution.
ReplyDelete-Cody Wallace, Per. 3
I feel that if Bush had 171 recess appiontments Obama should too especially if its said in the constitution. Reid wasnt being fair and is trying shift the power more to his side of the govt. And the media is probably taking it a little further than it should be.
ReplyDeleteBraxton Matthews P.3
I think that in the past, the Senate has been trying awfully hard to prevent the president from having any form of significant control. It weakens the role of the president greatly and Obama's retaliation is actually understandable and rather necessary in order to have any influence at all. Congress is very close to overstepping the boundaries meant to balance the two opposing forces.
ReplyDeleteUrsula Garcia
Period 2
Obama's power as president should not be challenged since it has been done plenty of times in the past. If Bush made 171 appointments, then Obama doing the same thing should not be as terrible as it is made out to be. Obama has the authority as president to go about such acts, however, the fact that he tried to avoid the proper ways of facing the conflict is where he is wrong. By not using the usual policy of the Justice Department, President Obama may be stepping out of line with Congress.
ReplyDelete--Claire Freeman, Period 3
I don't know why this is even possible. I mean, the sole purpose of the American government is to protect our rights and follow the will of the people. These cheap political tatics seem more like special interest groups are trying to take control. If Obama did appoint someone, it's not exactly an elected offical that's holding what is supposed to be an elected office. Moreover, said official would just be a pawn and would do whatever Obama wanted because he's the one who put him there. I just do not understand how anyone could support this when the fact is this: whoever Obama would appoint to that position won't be because they were chosen by the public.
ReplyDeleteAlex Santrach
Per. 2
Alex,
DeleteYou're right . . . they're not chosen by the public because these are not elected positions. These are positions created by Congress that must be filled by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
I would have to agree with many people, the constitution clearly says that Obama has the power to make recess appointments, and that it shouldn't even be a debatable issue within congress. I can understand congress's fear of Obama trying to fill the Senate with a majority, however, they have no power to say that Obama is not allowed to do such a thing.
ReplyDeleteZack Benson
Period 2
I think the Senate and the media are making this a bigger deal than it really is. If president Bush did the same thing while in office, then was stopped because of Reid (or at least that's how I interpreted that part), then both the Senate and the President tried at one point to "over step" their limitations. I think the only reason this got so much attention was because once news stations put up an article displaying any type of what seems to be one party taking over another people often seem to forget to check both sides of the argument.
ReplyDelete-Alfred Pina
Period 3
I know that checks and balances are in place for a reason, but I believe Obama should have the upper hand in the situation. He is the appointed leader of our country, and he has been put in this position to make decisions regarding what is best for the country. If he can find a loophole around this "blockade," if it is the only way possible, let it be.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Sullivan
Per. 2
Honestly, it's evident that Obama didn't make a completely out of the blue decision. He was given the right to do so. The Senate attempted to go for more power which was wrong, so why is everyone on Obama's case? I think that he has been nagged on way too much and on top of that he isn't being able to fulfill his role due to others attempt to overrule him. There is a much bigger conflict taking place than just the president's decision. The Democrats and Republicans need to resolve their issues and get onto the same level. The president just did what he was given the opportunity to do.
ReplyDeleteRimsha Y. Period 2.
After reading this article about what seems ultimately like a republican versus democratic battle, it can be interpreted that both parties are manipulating the system in their own way. Sure, the Congress could be blamed for not allowing President Obama to choose his appointee for the director of the agency while the republicans could be accused of artificially prolonging a session. Meanwhile, Obama is frowned upon for taking matters into his own hands to appoint Richard Cordray when consensus was clearly opposed to that decision. However, the President does hold the constitutional right to step in when Congress is on recess to make provisional appointments. The issue at hand is not debating the ability Presidents have to intervene when Congress is on vacation. This whole situation wouldn't have been a problem had Congress been on an official recess. The question is not "Is Obama justified in appointing Cordray when Congress was not available?". The question is, "Was Congress truly in recess?" The article states that "President Bush made 171 recess appointments during his first six years in office." I believe that this statement is entirely irrelevant because the circumstances are different. All the times that Bush made appointments, Congress was clearly and officially unavailable. I do not question Obama's given right to step in when Congress is not able to make an appointment. I am simply wondering whether he was justified in doing so even though Congress was not declared "in recess".
ReplyDeleteKelsi Holton
Period 3
:)
DeleteI feel like this is a never ending battle for power between Democrats and Republicans. They are both exploiting checks and balances by obviously trying to gain power for themselves over the other branches, specifically the Senate because it is attempting to take some power away from the Executive Branch. Although Obama may have pushed a few issues (going around the policy of the Justice Department and waiting until the Senate was on recess to make appointments) it is his constitutional right to be able to do so, therefore he shouldn't be pointed out to be the "bad guy". It is his duty as president to make these appointments as it has been for every president before him, so he is doing no differently than the others, and this issue should not be getting so much attention from the media. Also, Reid's plan is meant to be "temporary" but it seems more long lasting than just "temporary" and I feel like he is attempting to take some power away from the president, which is not right. All in all, I believe Obama should continue what he's doing because he's really only doing his job, and using his constitutional given rights to make these appointments and decisions.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Sanchez
Period 3
I fully understand Sahil and Cavenaugh's argument that Yes, the president does retain the right to choose appointees of his own liking during the times of recess. However, the argument is not whether Obama has the executive power by the constitution to appoint while congress is not available to arbitrate the selection of the appointee. The president has, without a doubt, the ability to appoint while congress is on recess. The real question is was congress officially on a recess or not. The argument that President Bush had appointed many members does not make Obama any less eligible to do the same. Unlike Bush's appointees, the appointment of Richard Cordray was made behind the backs of congress. The argument on whether to appoint or not to appoint Cordray was made while congress was in session however it was unilaterally reprimanded and he was not the applicant of choice amongst congress. Obama can chose either to respect the opinion of congress during a time of recess or negate it and do as he pleases. President Obama deliberately waited until congress was on a 'recess' to make his appointee official. According to the Cleveland newspaper, "congress has been holding 'performa' sessions every three days, meeting a constitutional requirement to avoid calling a recess". However, Obama bypassed and disregarded the fact the congress was still in session thus causing the president's appointal of Richard Cordray unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteMichael Tomey. Period 2
Well for starters it's fun to watch people try to be subtle and out do each other with their entries already, throwing out a plethora of political vocabulary and jargon they might not even know the meaning to. As for the situation...I couldn't care less, talk about a slow news day. It's clear that this whole recess process has been done in the past and it shouldn't be treated as some large scandal because Obama is implementing measures taken numerous times in the past. Let the guy do his job and let them get past this issue and onto the next one so the government isn't stuck in some pointless stalemate.
ReplyDeleteJack Morris
Period 3
I might not be the biggest fan of the Obama administration, but i think it's ridiculous how Obama cant get his share of recess appointments. I mean Bush got 171!!! Thats ridiculous, where's the checks and balances in that???
ReplyDeleteJoey Aliano
Period 2
I believe that the public has all the right to look at "another example of Washington malfunction" with disgust. It is not about the fact that President Obama plainly fighting the Senate on recess appointments, but HOW he did it. The article explains how Bush had commit a similar act in recessing appointments; however, he did not continue this once Reid's initiative went into effect. What the public is criticizing is mainly on Obama's way of handling this situation. Presidents usually rely on the Justice Department in handling situations, but Obama refused to seek the Senate. Instead, he used Kathryn Ruemmler (his White House counsel). This is why many people are scrutinizing his "launch of attack" because he took a different route to handling things.
ReplyDeleteKathy Hu
Period 2
He wanted to be the "change"!
Delete-Jessica B.
Although the Constitution allows the head of the executive branch to fill vacancies in the senate during times of recess, I believe that both President Obama and Reid acted in an ethically unsound manner. However, ethical principles non- withstanding, Obama was indeed within the limit of his executive power as the President of the United States. The U.S. has a government based upon the golden rule of separation of powers. President Obama, as any president would have, took advantage of an archaic loophole in the Constitution that allowed him to insubstantially bypass the balance between the executive and legislative branches. In conclusion, I find that while President Obama's actions are certainly not venerable, they are not deplorable.
ReplyDelete--Spencer Thompson Period 2
I personally don't care about the feud between the parties, I am not aligned to any party whatsoever, I don't even care about politics. I just see this as a fight for power, a power to protect interests. Obama has his own interests and what he thinks is right while the Senate doesn't think the same way. One could be right,one could be wrong or they both could be wrong or right. It seems as though neither the president or the senate are truly thinking of the American people when they make decisions. But who knows I could be wrong. I feel that if the government listened to the public more and really based their decisions on what we wanted there wouldn't be problems like this. But everyone has to please someone and according to Obama and the Senate that someone isn't America.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Benham Period 2
After contemplating the possible conclusions regarding the situation in this article I found that neither the Senate nor President Obama have justified their actions. Both of these groups have continually stepped over their boundarys and it is clearly shown that this situation exemplifies the action-reaction principle based on their said performances. While the Senate took it upon themselves to ensure and gain power by denying Obama's presidential authority, Obama continued to bypass Senate's disapproval and gain more political strength through use of his "White House" counsel. Overall I'd say that this might prove to be a situation similar to that of the pluralist view regarding factions and their struggle for power. ---- Bryan Quiambao P. 3
ReplyDeleteI feel like the republicans have no argument here. Obama is in his constitutional right to appoint during a recess, whether it benefits them or not isn't really an issue here what’s odd is that they're trying to stop him, if anything that sounds unconstitutional to me. It's been done before it shouldn't be surprising that he's taking advantage of his opportunities.
ReplyDeleteFacundo Sirri
Period 2
I think that the Senate is trying to gain too much power and trying to weaken Obama's power. Obama clearly has the right to make recess appointments, so let him. Obama's retaliation is completely understandable, however I don't think he went about it the best possible way, it might have just added more fuel to the fire. This pushing boundaries on checks and balances needs to stop.
ReplyDelete-Hayley Arias-Wood
Per.3
If the Constitution is truly the dogma for the United States government, then the president should be allowed to make recess appointments as it directs. However, this executive right has been complicated since Senator Harry Reid's initiative in 2007 to deny Bush the authority to make recess appointments. This agitates the system of checks and balances. Not only does the Republican blockade prevent Obama from fulfilling his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," they are violating the principle of checks and balances. Regardless of who Obama appoints, the balance of powers will prevent undesirable situations that are not in the best interest of the public. This predicament is simply a debate between Republicans and Democrats vying for majority.
ReplyDeleteKimi Kim, Period 3.
Given the circumstances of the situation, the person who is at blame is Sen. Harry Reid. As a corrupted man only interested in benefits for his party, he insulted the framers by giving his own branch more power and throwing off the system of checks and balances. The constitution was created to avoid this (this being a faction creating laws to benefit themselves). The way Obama acted in this situation was not necessarily best, but it was an error that was justifiable. However, instead of acting in such a mischievous way, the president should have confronted the congress and had all of these blockades put to an end. The real issue dealing with Obama is that he has acted without consent of the congress before. He decided to bomb Libya although the action was against the War Powers Act. How many times can a president openly act against Congress's decisions before strife happens? Going down to the very core of this issue, people believe that Obama is not protecting liberty, which is an unalienable right, not only of the people of the United States of America, but to all people.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Nasrallah
Period 2
The fact of the matter remains that President Obama does in fact have the right to fill in positions in a time of recess. There I personally see nothing wrong, and therefore see it as somewhat ridiculous that the "malfunction" has been blown out of proportions, especially knowing that presidents before him have done the same. The issue lies in the way both the Senate and Obama are handling the situation, and I see it with purely egotistical and selfish intentions. It is just a struggle for power, they are fighting not to compromise but to "win" the dispute. Once there is a competition for power, that paves the way for biased decisions and they are no longer thinking of the people--they have essentially lost sight of the whole point that they are there. With that being said, why worry about an exaggerated situation that is in play only in the struggle of power, not really anything else at this point.
ReplyDeleteCarolina Guzman Period 2
The constitution reflects human nature, but has its mirror revealed a character too obdurate and wicked to be effectively utilized by the framer's original system of checks and balances? As society progresses, government evolves new power and power distributions. For example, the current recess appointments can allow Obama to adjust Senate majorities and facilitate the passing of his legislation, but the Senate can filibuster the appointments by never breaking session via ludicrous, minute-long pro forma meetings. The end result is political stagnation, a cessation on cooperation, and an emerging polemical divide. Yet, the responsibility lies with the two aggressors who have overstepped their jurisdiction, politically and ethically. Is it right for a president to pile drive legislation through the throats of a disobliging congress? Should congress hold a session cognizant of its futility to produce any discussion and its sole purpose to check the executive's power? In either case, Obama's and congress' actions are deplorable, epitomizing the self-centered, vote-mongering, elite in Washington who sacrifice compromise for a ephemeral constituency.
ReplyDelete--Jonathan Davidson Period 2
My first reaction regarding "Washington Standoff"was that this is just a battle between the Republicans and Democrats. Ultimately, this seems like an issue involving the necessary checks and balances in our government. In the Constitution, the president is allowed to fill empty positions during a time of recess; Obama should have the ultimate authority in choosing these positions. If Bush was able to make 171 appointments in his first six years as president without any fuss, then why should there be a problem when Obama makes appointments while he serves as president? I think that Obama has become the scapegoat in this situation, when really, it is the Senate that is not following the Constitution properly.
ReplyDeleteSarah Alaniz, period 3
According to the Constitution, Obama had the right to appoint during recesses. But, even with the rule of checks and balances the Senate tried to deny and make excuses; ultimately, they were attempting to be that "top shelf branch".
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think that the Senate Republicans just have a stick up their butt because Obama made an effective move against them that pissed them off; now they're having grown-up tantrums which could potentially weaken the government thus affecting us, the people.
Linda Lee
Period 3
After reading this article, I feel like President Obama is in the right to go around the Senate Republicans. Bush did the same thing and he for what he needed accomplished. If there should be public disagreement, the public should be upset with the Senate Republicans putting up his blockade that started with Senator Reid. The senate is just getting in the way of anything being accomplished with these games.
ReplyDelete- Jaylin Stevenson Per. 3
As typical, the government has bitten itself in the arse. The innocent workings of the original Congress and Founding Fathers have progressed to another scheme for men to gain power illegitimately. Really, though, can we even be surprised? Haha, what's new...
ReplyDeleteBut anyways, I'm no expert on politics but I believe Obama should have the right to appoint whomever he wants. The Republicans are jumping through hoops trying to get their way when they should really just follow the Constitution. Granted, the ancient document was written at a time when the situations were incredibly different, but still the government cannot function with these holes in positions. Something has to happen quickly; it's not fair for us as Americans to have to suffer because of a few men's hunger for power.
~~~Angela Bi, Period 3
Reid's "temporary" fix doesn't seem so temporary. Bush's 171 appointments before Reid and then 0 with Reid? It seems like he's increasing power in places it was not originally meant to be placed. I'm fine with Obama using his authority, but I agree when the article says he "has chosen the worst possible way to launch his attack". The seperation of powers is there for a reason. Obama shouldn't be able to waltz around Congress using his "White House counsel". I don't like the idea that if this works, future Presidents might be able to do the same thing with the "Obama did it and it worked for him" type of mentality. The article suggests that if the Senate's defense wins, government will be weaked for a while. I believe it is an exaggeration to prove a point. But if this is true, I personally favor the Legislation branch to not conduct their own actions like Obama's did. He used his counsel to side step the War Powers Act. It's not the best feeling to see him do that with a picky issue such as military engagement. If he feels like he can do that, Obama and eventually other presidents may do actual damage with more fragile policies and acts.
ReplyDeleteKasim Manekia Period 2
The power struggle between the President and Senate is a perfect example of why there is so much distrust from Americans today towards our representatives. I agree with others' comments on our government's check and balances system. Our president, who seems to be appointing positions because he truly feels they are the most equipped for the position, is being unfairly overpowered. The Senate is acting in the self-interest of its party and not the people it represents.
ReplyDeleteChristine Noche Per. 3
*Correction Period 2
DeleteI think Obama's appointment was justified. The Senate's "session" should barely qualify as legally binding. There should be a set official time for a Congressional session to be legally binding. Recess appointments are justified and have been practiced by all Presidents. Obama is not even close to the 171 appointments made by Bush, which is a cause for concern. Obama has not made that many recess appointments, so worries over breaching the system of checks and balances are not yet much of an issue as it is made up to be by Obama's opponents. Obama acted within his constitutional limits and the Senate should take the blame for failing to meet its obligations to assess presidential appointments in a timely manner.
ReplyDeleteMaliq Nixon Per. 3
Honestly Mr. C, i will admit that i felt completely lost in the article for at least a good 85% of the time. & i'm sorry, but i just have no clue what it is talking about. but what i got out of it was that there is a problem over power between the president & the senate. it was not until the 20th century, better yet, even better, not until really 2007 with the face off between Reid & Bush where this conflict created a problem. & now in 2012 we are beginning to face once again, this conflict between the president & senate. & personally i do not know of all the details between the three different houses & all the rules for the whole checks & balances thing. but from what i do know, i believe that somewhere in all that there should be something to fix this mess, to prevent it from happening. maybe not to exactly solve for what either Obama or the Senate wants, but so that this does not lead to a long term affect, effect? idk. either way, our government should not have to suffer in the long run, because that can only lead to occasions where problems only seem to get worse. yeah, that's about all i have to say.
ReplyDeletePriscilla Mewborne p.3
The common belief that congress has been making little progress lately is what has attracted the media to this certain situation. The senate blockage of the president's recess appointments further aggravates the matter, as many of the sessions are short and most likely unproductive. This is an example of the checks and balances system functioning; nevertheless, it has become a hindrance to the nation's development. This ridiculous method of constricting the president's power is not only an abuse of the checks and balances system, but it is ultimately no more than another dispute between democrats & republicans.
ReplyDeleteFernando Gomez
Per. 2
I believe that Obama is keeping within his own boundaries, it states in the constitution that he has the right to fill positions in congress during a recess. I don't understand why it had become such an issue among the executive and legislative branches. I agree with te others in saying that it doesn't make sense that Bush was able to fulfill this duty for six years out of his presidency with no issue, why is it such a big deal now. I also agree that this seems to be an instance of the Democratic and Rebublicam parties trying to step over each other.
ReplyDeleteliz judd period 3
It's comforting to know that I am surrounded by such politically adept people. As for my humble opinion, well, Bush made 171 appointments while Congress was in recess, until Reid ended this by holding one minute sessions over their "break". Obama should have the right to appoint others while Congress is in recess but I am definitely not opposed to Reid keeping these meetings up as he did to block Bush. I would like to hear more about what Mr. Cavanaugh has to say about this affair
ReplyDeleteYour House of Representatives Representative,
Lucas Richichi
Period 2
Assistant to the Regional Manager
When reading the article, the first thing that comes to mind is thinking of what the source is. The LA Times is traditionally a liberal newspaper, and the article is in the "opinions" section meaning the writer is nearly free to have a bias. With an election coming up, we can expect to see alot of propaganda for and against our current president. This article does, however, seem to present a reasonable and fair argument. The problem at hand that many students have brought out is that this is simply a pure battle for power between the executive and legislative branch, exactly what we've been studying in class. A few students have mentioned that possibly the law shouldn't exist. I disagree because there does need to be a solution in case congress is not in session and a decision must be made and the President is supposed to be one we can trust. In this case, the ability is most likely being abused I don't believe either group has the true benefits for our nation in mind- it is just politics. At least it is good to see that our system or branches checking on eachother is in place and working, attempting to prevent eachother from abusing power. All in all, it all feels rather petty.
ReplyDeleteIvana Bosch per 3
Nothing anyone done has been illegal. They're simply as you mentioned, trying to find a loophole to gain more power. At this point, it is just human nature coming in. This is the reason the Framers split up the power between the three branches. If anything, it is the President's right to hold recess appointments in order to fill positions when the Congress is at 'recess'. I personally think the Senate has overreacted about this (or the media has) and is attempting to stir up disputes out of anything. I am sure they are all aware of how the government was set up, so all branches could check and balance each other, yet they are all so corrupted by the essence of power to make a futile attempt at majority rule.
ReplyDeleteI also realize it's past midnight and I really apologize, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to post anyways...
-Tiffany Hsu, P.2
*Comment take two* (tee hee)
ReplyDeleteWell, I personally feel that Obama was in the right to do what he did. He is simply trying to do his job. And if members of congress actually want to keep anything from actually getting done, the better for Obama to look, since he's actually trying to get something done.
Kelsey Harper Per. 3
I don't think Obama was outside his boundaries when he made the appointment. I agree with the people that say that they are just trying to find loopholes so as to gain more power over the other. However, those who justified Obama's actions by saying that "Bush did it too, 171 times" don't really, in my opinion, make a valid point, because honestly.. In plain terms, just because Bush did it doesn't mean it's okay. haha Back to the issue though, this is all about a power struggle between legislative and executive branch. I think that Obama, being completely within his constitutional rights, is allowed to take advantage of the oppurtunity.
ReplyDeleteTamara A. per. 3
Both the President and the Senate keep stepping over their power lines trying to get what they want done but their desires keep blocking each other. This is an example of the checks and balances system, although it wasn't meant to cause gridlock, the American people can still have faith that one faction can't take over and do as it pleases. Our government is at a stand still and what Obama did was not illegal just shady, if what he did helps resolve this gridlock then so be it. Something needs to get done in the government whether the Senate or the President does it, it doesn't matter,but if either one is trying to get something done maybe they have to color outside the lines a little bit and America just has to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteThomas Tichy per.3