• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats playing politics with Bolton

jallman said:
As much as I hate to say it, if they cant come to a compromise, then Bush should have all authority to appoint his candidate. I just feel the Republicans are being smug and about who has control of the sandbox on this one.
Click to expand...

My point was that Bush, or any president does not have constitutional authority to appoint during recess unless the vacancy occurs during the recess. Whoever is in power needs to follow the rules.

Sure the Republicans are being smug, just as the Democrats were, when for example Clinton appointed a gay ambassador, and the first Black appellate justice to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during recess.
 
C.J. said:
My point was that Bush, or any president does not have constitutional authority to appoint during recess unless the vacancy occurs during the recess. Whoever is in power needs to follow the rules.

Sure the Republicans are being smug, just as the Democrats were, when for example Clinton appointed a gay ambassador, and the first Black appellate justice to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during recess.
Click to expand...

Well if they wont agree, then someone has to appoint the envoy. What are we supposed to do, go without an ambassador to the UN? And Clinton's appointments were a whole different ball game...smug and conservative republicans were trying to block those appointments based on prejudices, not qualifications. Bolton's appointment is in question because the Republicans are intentionally denying information about him. I am not saying Clinton didnt abuse the Constitution, I am just saying he seemed to be less confrontational in doing so.

The fact still remains, its a petty dispute that makes both sides look bad when you get right down to it.
 
jallman said:
Well if they wont agree, then someone has to appoint the envoy. What are we supposed to do, go without an ambassador to the UN? And Clinton's appointments were a whole different ball game...smug and conservative republicans were trying to block those appointments based on prejudices, not qualifications. Bolton's appointment is in question because the Republicans are intentionally denying information about him. I am not saying Clinton didnt abuse the Constitution, I am just saying he seemed to be less confrontational in doing so.

The fact still remains, its a petty dispute that makes both sides look bad when you get right down to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a petty dispute, which does more than make both sides look bad, it shows them for what they are. I am not condemming Clintons appointments, Bush's or any other presidents as long as they followed the rules. The Fourth Circuit position was vacant for over 10 years, so an emergency it was not, and definitely not such an emergency as to violate the Constitution. Although I believe Lott was being prejudicial by not allowing a Senate vote on Hormel I know of no constitutional exception to allow a recess appointment.

Recess appointments were meant as a narrow exception to the process. It was not meant to settle disputes or disagreements between the President and the Senate. So the answer is yes, we should be without a U.N. ambassador until one is selected per the Constitution. I am sure you are not suggesting the President should have the capability to rewrite the Constitution whenever he feels like it, are you?
 
Of course not. And for the record, neither is rewriting the Constitution, but they did and are about to exploit a loophole you could drive a mac truck through.

But...when was the last time you saw either side take into account the spirit of the Constitution when there was a chance to smack their opponent in the face? The authority of the constitution has been undermined to the point that it's expected that they will use any loophole in it that can be found. At this point it would be useless to even try to add amendments because one side or the other would just refuse to follow based on some petty technicality.

This is exactly why some of the founding fathers begged that there be no formation of political parties.
 
jallman said:
Of course not. And for the record, neither is rewriting the Constitution, but they did and are about to exploit a loophole you could drive a mac truck through.

But...when was the last time you saw either side take into account the spirit of the Constitution when there was a chance to smack their opponent in the face? The authority of the constitution has been undermined to the point that it's expected that they will use any loophole in it that can be found. At this point it would be useless to even try to add amendments because one side or the other would just refuse to follow based on some petty technicality.

This is exactly why some of the founding fathers begged that there be no formation of political parties.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't a loophole, it's a deliberate circumvention. Both party's know it, but they also know that if they object to it, their party can never use it again either. Again, this speaks to the character of those in government, not just who are in power.

As far as amendments go, the state legislatures can bypass Congress if need be, but for the most part amendments are not needed, a simple following of the rules is.
 
C.J. said:
Actually it isn't a loophole, it's a deliberate circumvention. Both party's know it, but they also know that if they object to it, their party can never use it again either. Again, this speaks to the character of those in government, not just who are in power.

As far as amendments go, the state legislatures can bypass Congress if need be, but for the most part amendments are not needed, a simple following of the rules is.
Click to expand...

I cant argue that, but neither side is going to do it. Republican arrogance will prevent them from just handing over the requested information, because that in effect will be like sharing their toys and little brat bush cant have that.

The dems are simply going to rail against anything the republicans try to do simply because it is being initiated by their great enemy.

The whole situation has devolved into a petty power struggle that never needed to be in the first place.
 
jallman said:
The whole situation has devolved into a petty power struggle that never needed to be in the first place.
Click to expand...

And I can't argue that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom