Is this the "Little Surprise" of 47 and the Speaker?

[Walker88]

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

[EVENKEEL]

14 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

Feel better?

[Yagoda]

Recess appointments are constitutional and any real American knows it

[novacova]

22 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

You seem bothered and disappointed 

[frank83628]

That sent me to sleep

[Yagoda]

41 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

That sent me to sleep

Hitler's Table Talks were like that.

[jerrymahoney]

11/15/24 4:30 PM ET

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who was elected Republican leader this week, hasn’t ruled out recess appointments, but he has also acknowledged they could be procedurally difficult to achieve if there is enough GOP opposition.

“All this is a process. But I don’t think any of those things are necessarily off the table. I think we have to have all the options on the table,” Thune told Fox News.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4993461-trump-cabinet-5-takeaways Edited Thursday at 06:43 AM by jerrymahoney

[scottiejohn]

5 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Hitler's Table Talks were like that.

How do you know, were you there?

[soalbundy]

22 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Recess appointments are constitutional and any real American knows it

What's an unreal American?

[soalbundy]

23 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

This too shall pass.

[jesimps]

23 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

So the overwhelming majority of people who voted in President Trump "Do not deserve to be American" because they don't lean the same way politically as you? Ridiculous post.

[blaze master]

This one is having a rather hard time coping. 

[Presnock]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:55 AM, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

looks like more than 5 Republicans were against Gaetz but instead of allowing the appointment approval process to be done in recess, IMHO the Republicans on the investigation committee agreed not to release the Gaetz report is he would drop out of the running for AG.  But that doesn't mean he couldn't still be in the AG arena later in some lesser function.  

[AndreasHG]

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

What's an unreal American?

 

I guess he alludes to the "enemy from within." That is, any American taxpayer who disagrees with the puppeteers pulling the strings from the WH and Fox News. 

 

Edited Friday at 01:38 AM by AndreasHG

[save the frogs]

Point #1:

Does "democracy" truly exist or even mean anything?

If political leaders needed to check in with the entire population every time they wanted to do sth, nothing would get done because everyone would be arguing about everything. 

 

There is a mostly benign form of control in most countries. Some better than others. 

 

Also, there are "think tanks" behind the scenes that you don't hear about in the daily news. Really, I think govts take advice from these think tanks. I don't think they just pull a bunch of decisions out their butt-holes, but neither do they check in with the average Joe, who knows very little about how to run a country. 

 

 

Point #2: 

Does absolute power by anyone truly exist?

Will Trump really influence every aspect of your life as much as you think he will? Or are you being delusional?

 

When you are a child, your parents are your dictators. If you had crappy parents, then the first part of your life is hard..

 

When you go to work, then your company/manager is the dictator. They don't constantly ask you what you think, if ever. 

You need to do what you're told to collect that paycheck. If you're lucky, they're decent people and a decent company. Some are worse than others. But if you don't like the rules, you need to look for another job. Or create your own, in which case you become the dictator and get to impose your rules on other people. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because you cannot operate a company without rules. It just lends itself to abuse.  

 

 

 

[Wrwest]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:55 AM, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

Or that belief in and support for the USA, with all it faults has been totally lost by the majority working middle class (bulk of the population). Not only a complete surrender but a repudiation of a failed system. I fear it is a possibility.

[Jim Blue]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:08 AM, Yagoda said:

Hitler's Table Talks were like that.

Castro's six hour lectures could beat that ! No boos either .

[Thingamabob]

On 11/21/2024 at 7:55 AM, Walker88 said:

Recess appointments

 

The Founders who wrote the US Constitution (Madison and Jefferson), with a goal toward a functioning government in a time when there were no airplanes or railroads, and calling Congress to session could take considerable time, allowed for a President to make recess appointments to heads of Departments and agencies. The rules---geared toward a world with the travel inconveniences and communication difficulties of 1700s---were never changed.

 

Many Presidents have used recess appointments to fill positions, but generally these were for less than critical jobs. To stop such appointments, all that is needed is for Congress to call a pro forma session, and then it becomes a partisan game of recess or pro forma. Both the House and Senate must agree on adjournment, and note the specific date of such. When one Party controls the House and the other the Senate, agreement is unlikely.

 

When one Party controls the White House, Senate and House, there is nothing to stop recess appointments except common sense and courage, neither of which currently exist in the Party that used to be known as Republican, but which is now clearly a cult of personality, controlled by cowardice and the fear of a mean Tweet or an elected official being 'primaried'.

 

Toward the end of the campaign, 47 spoke of a 'little surprise' he and Speaker Johnson had planned. I suggest the plan is this:

 

Shortly after the Inauguration, the Speaker will call a House recess. This could come as early as January 21, 2025. The Senate must conquer to make a total Congressional recess official, and given the spineless people who are the Republican Senators, it is likely the Senate will conquer. The sitting President can then appoint, without anyone's approval, people like Gaetz, Hegseth, Gabbard and RFK,Jr to official positions.

 

Recess appointments last until the current session of Congress ends, which would mean  the end of the year in 2026, and in actuality until the new Congress is sworn in the first week of January 2027. 47 could get his people in their position for nearly two years. Only if Dems retake the House and Senate could these appointments then be forced to come before the Senate for official confirmation. It Republicans maintain control of both houses, the Speaker can do a rinse and repe4at, allowing the recess appointments to last until the early days of 2029.

 

The Founders established the system of checks and balances specifically so that no one person, not even the President, could have such power. Recess appointments were put into the Constitution in view of the fact even sending communications to various States took time (think of riding a horse from DC to Maine in 1776), and the subsequent travel back to DC by horse or horse-drawn carriage took time. The Founders' intent was not to grant a President such broad and overwhelming power, but rather efficiency.

 

In 2025, the abuse of an article and clause written 250 years ago creates a de facto dictator with near absolute power, something that slaps in the face the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they established the United States of America and its system of checks and balances via three branches of government.

 

The US was founded by incredible wise people, so wise they were willing to admit their own human faults and aim the new nation toward a land of total legal equality and with limits on the power of any one branch of government. The 'little surprise', if my suspicions are correct, destroys the system much smarter men than 47 and Speaker Johnson created.

 

We shall see, in my opinion, in the first week or two of the new Administration. We shall also confirm the totally spineless nature of Republican Senators if they go along with Speaker Johnson and also declare the Senate in recess.

 

If that is the country you want, then you do not deserve to be American and have no clue what the United States was intended to be. Madison and Jefferson would agree.

Boring. Give it a rest.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, AndreasHG said:

 

I guess he alludes to the "enemy from within." That is, any American taxpayer who disagrees with the puppeteers pulling the strings from the WH and Fox News. 

 

Ones who don't like Ma's apple pie, white picket fences and the American flag, yes it's all very important of course.....except it isn't. It's amusing to see supporters of Dems and the GOP get so passionate and upset as if decisions made are going to cause the world to split apart, remember everything is temporary. Think back to all your decisions and disasters in your past, all so important, and yet no matter what happened, here you still are worrying about the next batch of problems, it's all bullocks. 

[Patong2021]

4 hours ago, jesimps said:

So the overwhelming majority of people who voted in President Trump "Do not deserve to be American" because they don't lean the same way politically as you? Ridiculous post.

 

They did not necessarily agree to a shredding of  due process that allows for  the review of appointments. The Republicans control both the House and the Senate. Why would Trump be so afraid to allow proper review of appointments? What is he trying to hide?

[WDSmart]

I include the Electoral College in the list of historical but outdated aspects of our (the USA's) constitution. 

[blaze master]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I include the Electoral College in the list of historical but outdated aspects of our (the USA's) constitution. 

 

You don't care about a constitution. What are you on about. 

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

You don't care about a constitution. What are you on about. 

No, I do care about the USA's constitution, but some of the aspects of it are outdated. One is the topic of this Forum, and I've suggested another one, the Electoral College. It was put into place 248 years ago because after the votes in each state were collected and counted, they would have to ride on horseback to Washington, DC, to include them in the tally to determine who won the presidential election. Also, because of the emphasis on state's rights, each state was allowed to determine how their votes would be cast. Now, with our computers and communications structures, we should just be able to send the votes electronically and have them tallied as the popular vote. That's what I'd recommend. Of course, I'm a Democrat (favoring a democracy) and not a Republican (favoring a republic). 

If you're worried that I'm trying to change the results of this election, I'm not. I accept the fact that Trump won (accept it disappointedly). He won the plurality of the popular vote, so he would have been elected president in that case. However, there is the possibility that if no one wins a majority, the top two candidates will have a run-off election. That would have been an interesting event should it have happened this time. 

[blaze master]

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, I do care about the USA's constitution, but some of the aspects of it are outdated. One is the topic of this Forum, and I've suggested another one, the Electoral College. It was put into place 248 years ago because after the votes in each state were collected and counted, they would have to ride on horseback to Washington, DC, to include them in the tally to determine who won the presidential election. Also, because of the emphasis on state's rights, each state was allowed to determine how their votes would be cast. Now, with our computers and communications structures, we should just be able to send the votes electronically and have them tallied as the popular vote. That's what I'd recommend. Of course, I'm a Democrat (favoring a democracy) and not a Republican (favoring a republic). 

If you're worried that I'm trying to change the results of this election, I'm not. I accept the fact that Trump won (accept it disappointedly). He won the plurality of the popular vote, so he would have been elected president in that case. However, there is the possibility that if no one wins a majority, the top two candidates will have a run-off election. That would have been an interesting event should it have happened this time. 

 

I'm not worried you want to change the results. I am worried about how much of a hypocrite you are.

 

You're not a Democrat you're a socialist. Better if you left democracy out of your replies as you don't believe in it nor its values

 

 

Socialism has no room for a constitution and freedoms. 

 

Right ?

[WDSmart]

40 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

I'm not worried you want to change the results. I am worried about how much of a hypocrite you are.

 

You're not a Democrat you're a socialist. Better if you left democracy out of your replies as you don't believe in it nor its values

 

 

Socialism has no room for a constitution and freedoms. 

 

Right ?

I am a Democrat, a far-left liberal, and yes, I am a socialist. Socialism is an economic system like capitalism. A democratic government can administer a socialistic, capitalistic, or even communistic economy.

A democratic government can indeed run a socialistic economy with a constitution, and yes, it has freedoms. It has, for example, the freedom for you to work at whatever you want, whatever you think will most benefit society. The good thing about socialism is that the government then fulfills your needs as best it can, using all the assets of society. In a capitalistic economy with a democratic government, needs are fulfilled by the individuals as best as they can, with no help at all from the government. If you are not a successful worker or entrepreneur, you'll starve. 

[blaze master]

20 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I am a Democrat, a far-left liberal, and yes, I am a socialist. Socialism is an economic system like capitalism. A democratic government can administer a socialistic, capitalistic, or even communistic economy.

A democratic government can indeed run a socialistic economy with a constitution, and yes, it has freedoms. It has, for example, the freedom for you to work at whatever you want, whatever you think will most benefit society. The good thing about socialism is that the government then fulfills your needs as best it can, using all the assets of society. In a capitalistic economy with a democratic government, needs are fulfilled by the individuals as best as they can, with no help at all from the government. If you are not a successful worker or entrepreneur, you'll starve. 

 

Scary thing is you truly believe all that propoganda you spill. The guilt oozes out of you. 

[Yagoda]

11 hours ago, soalbundy said:

What's an unreal American?

One who doesnt know a recess appointment is constitutional, duh

[WDSmart]

13 hours ago, blaze master said:

 

Scary thing is you truly believe all that propoganda you spill. The guilt oozes out of you. 

The scary thing for me is that you and perhaps even the majority of my fellow citizens (USA) believe both socialism and communism have to be paired with authoritarianism. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy, authoritarianism, monarchy, etc., are governmental systems. Economic systems can be paired with a variety (but not all) of governmental systems. Socialism, communism, and capitalism can all be paired with a democracy. Socialism and communism cannot be paired with a plutocracy like capitalism because, in socialism and communism, there are no people who have more wealth than others.

The USA, like most countries, has a mixed economy with both socialistic and capitalistic aspects. Most services that start with "pubic" are socialistic services, like public libraries, public schools, public parks, public fire departments, etc. Services that start with "private" are capitalistic, like private hospitals, private schools, etc.  The main arguments about the economy in the USA are not about whether or not there should only be capitalism or socialism; it's about the percentage of the mix.

I hope you have learned something from the ooze above... 😉 

[blaze master]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The scary thing for me is that you and perhaps even the majority of my fellow citizens (USA) believe both socialism and communism have to be paired with authoritarianism. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy, authoritarianism, monarchy, etc., are governmental systems. Economic systems can be paired with a variety (but not all) of governmental systems. Socialism, communism, and capitalism can all be paired with a democracy. Socialism and communism cannot be paired with a plutocracy like capitalism because, in socialism and communism, there are no people who have more wealth than others.

The USA, like most countries, has a mixed economy with both socialistic and capitalistic aspects. Most services that start with "pubic" are socialistic services, like public libraries, public schools, public parks, public fire departments, etc. Services that start with "private" are capitalistic, like private hospitals, private schools, etc.  The main arguments about the economy in the USA are not about whether or not there should only be capitalism or socialism; it's about the percentage of the mix.

I hope you have learned something from the ooze above... 😉 

 

Keep on believing.

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

The scary thing for me is that you and perhaps even the majority of my fellow citizens (USA) believe both socialism and communism have to be paired with authoritarianism. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy, authoritarianism, monarchy, etc., are governmental systems. Economic systems can be paired with a variety (but not all) of governmental systems. Socialism, communism, and capitalism can all be paired with a democracy. Socialism and communism cannot be paired with a plutocracy like capitalism because, in socialism and communism, there are no people who have more wealth than others.

The USA, like most countries, has a mixed economy with both socialistic and capitalistic aspects. Most services that start with "pubic" are socialistic services, like public libraries, public schools, public parks, public fire departments, etc. Services that start with "private" are capitalistic, like private hospitals, private schools, etc.  The main arguments about the economy in the USA are not about whether or not there should only be capitalism or socialism; it's about the percentage of the mix.

I hope you have learned something from the ooze above... 😉 

It is impossible to have Socialism without authoritarianism. History, logic, human nature and education show that.

 

Your garbled analysis is mere spouting of soundbites, and silly ones at that. Public libraries are "socialist"? Well perhaps in their staffing LOL