Posted on 10/21/2005 10:12:30 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
Thanks for the advice. I fear backlash sometimes because I am new. It has happened a few times.
BTW, I was only asking a deeper question about the constitionality of any appointment that does not have Senate ratification or Recess appointment.
The only abuse I am aware of was Bill Clinton's when he took a sure-to-be-defeated nominee and planted permanently as an acting at the DoJ.
I presume you mean Bill Lann Lee, who was utterly dead in the water until the toon recess appointed him. Sleazy, yeah, but Constitutional.
Did he Recess him?
My understanding is that he served not until the next Congress, but until the end of Clintoon term. And, that is what made it abusive. Also, I think the "acting" designation was used instead of Recess to achieve this objective.
Even Clinton I believe apparently admitted that it was probably unconstitutional.
You noticed too huh?
Oh, this is an unexpected goody! :-)
Try looking at previous presidencies and historical precedents. America's governmental workings didn't begin with Clinton.
It is NOT YOUR government. It is mine too, and I feel it choking my throat each day as a big brother.
Do you know if *acting* appointments are constitutional?
Just because they have been used, does not make them so.
Cool! I'm a McNulty (maiden name) but not related to Paul (as far as I KNOW, at least).
Yes, "acting" appointments ARE Constitutional, as are recess appointments. The problem with the Clinton Bill Lan Lee one, is that he kept him on, after the Congressional session was reopened. That isn't Constitutional.
This is absolutely NOTHING at all akin to "BIG BROTHER" and if you feel "choked", perhaps it is by your own abject lack of knowledge about the workings of this nation, which you adopted.
Now I realize that you are the same one harassing the other day. Cut your crap and move on.
Recess appointments are spelled out in the constitution, and their timing is between Congressional recess.
Where does it say that the President can appoint someone while the Congress is in session?
Curious.....
See post #12, and add value, if you have better insights....Thanks!
Another poster, a bit farther up on this thread, gave you the links. You IGNORED those posts.
It would behoove you to not post as a certainty, that which you know little to nothing at all about. And FWIW, it is against FR's posting rules, to use the word "crap".
In reply to his post, I asked a follow up question and posted another comment along the lines of.....
Just because *acting* appointments have been made (even historically), does not make them constitutional. So, are they?
To answer your question (a silly one - but will satisfy your ego for now), I am in the process of becoming a Citizen.
Since you are in the midst of becoming a citizen, perhaps YOU should do your own research and learn all about this country, instead of emotionally making guesses about just what is Constitution and/or allowable and what isn't. This really would help you post better replies.
And yes, "acting" appointments are Constitutional.
Please consult a good dictionary and find out what ACTING means. You appear to think that "acting" means permanent; which in this case, it doesn't.
LOL! It is funny you think I need to consult a dictionary to know what *acting* means.
Following that logic, I wish Bolton served as *acting* UN Amb. while Biden/Dodd were making fools of themselves.
That was not possible. Please educate yourself on the rules/laws of your adopted country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.