Below is my column in USA Today on the pledge of President Donald Trump that he would adjourn Congress under a never used and rarely discussed power of Article II. While Trump pledged to do so a week ago, there has been no mention of the invocation since that time.
In the White House press conference, President Trump stated:
“If the House will not agree to that adjournment, I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both Chambers of Congress. The current practice of leaving town while conducting phony, pro forma sessions is a dereliction of duty that the American people cannot afford during this crisis. It is a scam. What they do. It’s a scam and everybody knows it, and it’s been that way for a long time, and perhaps it’s never done before. It’s never been done before. Nobody’s even sure if it has, but we’re going to do it.”
He later added:
“[Congressional leaders] know. They’ve been warned and they are being warned right now. If they don’t approve it, then we’re going to go this route, and we’ll probably be challenged in court and we’ll see who wins, but when the court hears that we aren’t getting people approved . . . for two and a half years for an important position that we need because of this crisis. We needed these people before, but now we really need these people.”
Here is the column:
President Donald Trump this week continued his curious legacy as a type of constitutional defibrillator that shocks to life long-dormant clauses related to executive authority. For decades, questions under emoluments, appointment clause and other provisions were little more than parlor games for law professors. That all changed with President Trump where flat-lined language suddenly bounced back into life with myriad of controversies.
The latest example is Article II, Section 3’s adjournment provision. Never used before, the provision allows a president “on extraordinary occasions” to formally adjourn Congress. Trump has said that he expects to be challenged in court and that is the only thing that is certain about this untested provision.
When the Framers drafted the adjournment provision, they specifically rejected the English model that allows a prime minister to dissolve Parliament to force new elections. Indeed, in Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton assured New Yorkers that the Constitution does not allow for the power of “The British monarch [to] prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament.” Instead, “the president can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.” The key to the provision, and to Hamilton, is the word “disagreement.” A president can only use this power “in case of disagreement between them.”
Bal attempt to bypass Congress
The “them” refers to the House and Senate; not the president and Congress. There is no current disagreement. Both houses currently agreed on the adjournment date on Jan. 3, 2020. During the pandemic, the houses have used pro forma sessions to continue a functioning legislature while allowing members (like most Americans) to work from home. Pro forma sessions have been commonly used (to the chagrin of many presidents) to technically stay in session to block the use of “recess appointments,” where a president can temporarily fill vacant positions. Presidents will often use recesses to appoint controversial figures or to circumvent Congress during gridlock over appointments.
Trump is not the first president to long for a recess in order to unilaterally appoint officials. However, no president has ever used this nuclear option for forced adjournment. The reasons President Trump has given for such an unprecedented act are strikingly weak. He complained about his ability to secure the confirmation of an official to oversee the Voice of America because he did not like the content of the coverage. He also complained about the failure to confirm judges despite the fact that the Senate has already set a record with roughly 200 judicial confirmations, a record that will be hard for any president to beat for some time. He insists that these and other appointments are needed to deal with the pandemic, a claim that seems transparently opportunistic.
Of course, the Constitution does not make a president’s motivations a criterion for using this power. However, it does require a disagreement between the houses. This threat will test the fealty of members of both houses and both parties to their institution. They should refuse to adjourn and, absent such a disagreement, the president’s gambit will fail.
As it stands, the president first has to force a disagreement over the date of adjournment, use this unprecedented power to order adjournment, place the houses in recess, and then use the recess to trigger his authority to make unilateral appointments. Moreover, the Senate would not only have to cooperate in a scheme to nullify its own authority but it would likely have to torch long-standing rules governing things like cloture to end debate — rules designed to protect minority interests in what Senators like to call “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” That daisy-chained strategy can break easily at various critical points.
Obama lost related case
The greatest problem is that the litigation alluded to by the president would create uncertainly over the legitimacy of government decisions by these officials. I have been a long critic of recess appointments, particularly judicial recess appointments. In 2012, I testified before Congress that President Barack Obama’s use of recess appointments, including the appointment of Richard Cordray to a consumer protection board, were flagrantly unconstitutional.
While he did not use the adjournment provision, Obama adopted an abusive interpretation of both his power and what constitutes a “recess.” Like Trump, he also railed against the “pro forma” session of Congress and refused to respect the decision to stay in session. (Notably, back then, Democratic members and law professors supported Obama’s effort to circumvent Congress).
Two years later in Noel Canning v. NLRB, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed and found President Obama violated the Constitution with his appointments. In words that should resonate today, the court declared that “the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction . . . Here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure.”
However, that was not the end of it. Many then objected that any decisions made over those two years by illegitimate officials were invalid.
The unconstitutional actions of Obama were costly but would pale in comparison to President Trump’s call for a host of appointments to both the judicial and executive branches after a forced adjournment. Some would be judges who would be ruling in cases in trial and appellate courts. If they were later found to be illegitimately appointed, those cases could be challenged as illegitimate.
None of this needs to happen. This is a dormant provision that should be left in well-earned slumber. Indeed, the recess appointments that Trump seeks to use have themselves been denounced as archaic and unnecessary In the 2014 decision in Canning, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion denounced that transformation of a narrow rule “into a weapon to be wielded by future presidents against future Senates.”
While both Justice Stephen Breyer and Scalia acknowledged this power, Scalia added that “The Recess Appointments Clause therefore is, or rather, should be, an anachronism — ‘essentially an historic relic, something whose original purpose has disappeared.’” Ironically, President Trump expressly confirmed yesterday what Scalia said next: “The need it was designed to fill no longer exists, and its only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling the president to circumvent the Senate’s role in the appointment process.”
Scalia was right. This is as unnecessary as it is unprecedented. During a pandemic, there has never been a more important time for “regular order” and bipartisanship in Congress. Citing the current emergency is hardly compelling when Congress is scheduled to resume full business in just two weeks on May 4 and can resume business at any time in this pro forma status. A pandemic is not an invitation for pandemonium.
Jonathan Turley is a Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors. He also served as lead counsel representing the United States House of Representatives in litigation over the health care law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Some of you definitely need to read or re-read Tom Sawyer.
What do you expect from a goat that wants to date his own daughter and salivates on her behind on television?
A pandemic is not an invitation for pandemonium.
Those words should be tattooed on every politicians forehead so as to remind them – while they are preening themselves in a mirror before pontificating before a camera – that the good of the nation as a whole comes before petty and partisan issues.
President Joins Far-Right Protests
Former presidents, politicians and newspaper editorial boards have lined up to denounce the “moronic” and “anti-democratic” behaviour of Brazil’s far-right leader after he hit the streets to egg on protesters demanding a return to military dictatorship.
As the number of deaths caused by Covid-19 rose to nearly 2,500 on Sunday, Jair Bolsonaro left his presidential palace in Brazil’s capital, Brasília, to fraternize with flag-waving radicals.
Among the demands their banners listed were an end to the social distancing measures opposed by Bolsonaro, the closure of Brazil’s congress and supreme court, and a re-run of a dictatorship-era decree used by military rulers in the late 1960s to suffocate their political opponents.
At one point – snubbing social distancing rules for the umpteenth time since the coronavirus crisis began – Brazil’s paratrooper-turned-president clambered onto a truck to address the hundreds-strong assembly.
“The era of roguery is over. Now it’s the people who are in power,” Bolsonaro proclaimed outside the Brazilian army headquarters, coughing repeatedly as he spoke.
“Everyone in Brazil must understand that they must yield to the will of the Brazilian people.”
Bolsonaro’s outing – which some suspect was a deliberate provocation designed to distract from the rising Covid-19 death toll – sparked immediate censure.
Former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who governed from 1995 until 2003, tweeted: “Deplorable for the president to join anti-democratic protests. It’s time to unite around the constitution against all threats to democracy.”
Edited From: “Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Denounced For Joining Pro-Dictatorship Rally”
Today’s Guardian
………………………………………………………….
Bolsonaro is frequently described as the ‘Brazilian Trump’. Trump, in fact, frequently hails Bolsonaro as a leader he admires. Ironically Bolsonaro joined this far-right rally only days after Trump tweeted ‘Liberate’ to militias in Minnesota, Michigan and Virginia.
The unconstitutional actions of Obama were costly but would pale in comparison to President Trump’s call for a host of appointments to both the judicial and executive branches after a forced adjournment.
You mean things Trump has suggested he might do in his sparring with Congress are worse than things Obama actually did do.
Absurd, is a What About you want addressed?
From NYT Link Enclosed In Turley’s Column:
Have Democrats blocked pandemic-related nominees?
It does not appear so. Democrats expressed puzzlement at the insinuation they had held up nominees for public health positions. Mr. Trump mentioned his desire that the Senate confirm pending nominees for director of national intelligence, the Federal Reserve board of governors, an assistant Treasury secretary, an under secretary of agriculture “responsible for administering food security programs” and the head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Have Trump’s judicial picks faced unusual barriers?
No. Despite Mr. Trump’s expression of outrage at the amount of time the Senate takes to debate whether to confirm each of his judicial nominees, because of recent rules changes under both parties, the chamber has far more quickly and frequently confirmed his nominees than judges appointed by his recent predecessors.
In three years and three months in office, Mr. Trump has already appointed 51 judges on the regional courts of appeal. By comparison, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush and Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan appointed an average of fewer than 32 such judges per each four-year term.
Edited From: “Why Trump’s Threat To Adjourn Congress Is Dubious”.
The New York Times, 4/16/20
………………………………………………………………
The thrust of this NYT piece suggests that Trump’s motives here are somewhat mysterious. What’s more, the pro forma Congressional sessions are more of a bipartisan agreement and not just a Democratic stunt.
“Have Democrats blocked pandemic-related nominees?”
Perhaps not but right now they are blocking $250 Billion to refill the small business relief effort. They are pigs.
Democrats want more money for hospitals. One imagines the need is real.
right, im sure they do. because they want to reward the same profiteering big bureaucracies who run hospitals so badly they can’t even stock enough masks for a public health epidemic
you guys never tire of rewarding incompetence
let me ask you. who is in a better position to stock the necessary gloves gowns etc? some army depot in some secret federal wearhouse in 6 different locations hidden under rocks, or in the thousands of hospitals dispersed thoughouth the US close to where the doctors and nurses will use them?
its a simple concept, call it decentralization, subsidiarity, etc. it’s not a matter of “capitalism versus socialism” it’s a matter of administrative competence versus incompetence
also, don’t tell me hospitals are short of money,. this is a lie. they last decade has seen many new hospitals built and old ones that were just too small, leveled and mothballed. they have had access to huge lines of credit and if they screwed up maybe we need to find the executives responsible and flog them publicly. don’t just think of a new way to tap the taxpayer,. please.
Kurtz, there is a federal national stockpile for this purpose which was not properly attended. Unless there is a law requiring hospitals to specifically plan for pandemics, they will never do it satisfactorily. Why would they? Counting on them doing so will always be rewarded the same way. Private businesses by definition are not tasked with taking the long term view on public interest issues, even they even take it for their bottom line. Those who may want to aren’t necessarily capitalized to do so. Public hospitals are constantly struggling to stay afloat with indigent and under insured patients.
You’re dreaming.
THEY WOULD DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE DOCTORS AND ITS THEIR JOB
not just one patient’s health but public health– they all get instruction in it and its a consideration at all times. this is a profession not just business.
if the hospitals were run by doctors; rather than scurrilous bean counters, then they might have done their jobs better
I am not dreaming, i gave you the figures for hospitals last week, the major metros have an range of
private for profit hospitals as well as nonprofits with massive budgets. they share some karma in this too
Closing rural hospitals is largely a result of not enough Doctors. When Obama-care came to be, there was a massive stampede for the door of retirement by Doctors. Even Medical schools have had to close, while others have drastically reduced tuition’s and still other med schools give out grants like candy.
Bob, let’s see a mainstream source that confirms your argument that Obamacare accelerated the decline of rural hospitals. The argument t makes no sense since hospitals lobbied ‘for’ Obamacare.
Loss Of Rural Hospitals Greater In States That Rejected Obamacare
Rural hospitals in particular have struggled for myriad reasons, including the decision of many Southern and Midwestern states to not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, none of the six states with the greatest number of hospital closures since 2010 (Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and North Carolina) expanded Medicaid, resulting in a health landscape where patients are in worse health and have fewer providers to treat them.
Edited from: “We’re Short On Hospital Beds Because Washington Allowed Too Many Hospital Mergers”
The Washington Post, 4/8/20
“hospitals lobbied ‘for’ Obamacare.”
Bob no one should listen to Paint Chips since he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Hospitals agreed because of several reasons. A big one was that all Americans had to carry insurance or be fined which benefitted both hospitals and insurers. But to your point about hospital closures, the large hospitals that sided with Obamacare took over other hospitals including rural ones forcing them to close and thereby got an even larger population for their clinics and hospitals that existed elswhere. Competition fell and costs to the individual increased.
Paint Chips is totally ignorant about anything but a left wing headline.
undercapitalized according to hospitals who want a new building every 20 years. it’s pathetic, they’re on a spending spree and not faced with the same kinds of budgetary and credit constraints that other enterprises have.
giving them more laws and subsidies is not going to necessarily improve the situation either. in some places like rural it might help but in some places like big cities probably what we need are some more prosecutiosn and imprisonments of incompetent hospital bureaucrats
but you should see how much these guys will put into a white collar medicaid defense if they get put in the dock by the feds. oh the big law firms charge incredible amounts of money to defend these and they do it well. here’s what a lot of big health enterprises are paying for: too many overpaid and yet shortsighted lawyers and accountants
i am an advocate of physicians actually leading health care enterprises and not just bean counters and bankers
this is a complicated area not subject to pithy oversimplifications coming from party alliances.
like so much other commentary, partisan slogans do more harm than good in sorting out complicated phenomena
Kurtz, hospitals in rural America are closing at an alarming rate. And here in L.A. many hospital are abandoned and used for only film shoots.
its true that there is a rural health care shortage problem but that is a complicated phenomenon which has been well underway long before the covid
that is a concentration of population issue which gets worse with urbanization. anyhow, don’t pretend you care too much about rural areas. big city people never do.
the situation in america up until this covid thing was faster urbanization than ever, feeding the usual social divisions. now a monkey wrench is in the gears and it’s hard to predict 5 years out anymore
There isn’t much of one. Fully 85% of the population live in metropolitan commuter belts, though many live within the morphologically rural portions thereof. I used to commute an hour each way for medical appointments. In my selection of residences and doctors, that was my choice.
Physical access is going to be a notable problem only for an odd minority who have elected to live in desolate areas. To some extent, it’s you pays ya money and ya takes ya choice. These problems can be addressed by state governments erecting and maintaining clinics and polyclinics in these areas, staffed by GPs working off medical school debts. No need for federal intervention.
“problem only for an odd minority who have elected to live in desolate areas”. Really? You sound like a 1%’er. I have mine – tough shit for you. There are many people who have been priced out of urban areas. But not YOU. So the hell with those others?!
What a narrow minded, heartless, selfish poor excuse you are for a human being.
“problem only for an odd minority who have elected to live in desolate areas”. Really? You sound like a 1%’er. I have mine – tough shit for you. There are many people who have been priced out of urban areas. But not YOU. So the hell with those others?!
For the record, the populations living in various loci is as follows:
American Samoa: 57,000
Saipan: 59,000
Hawaii (Kauai, Molokai, Lanai): 77,000
Alaska (outside of the settlements around Anchorage and Fairbanks): 470,000
California: eastern desert and mountains: 200,000
Eastern Oregon: ~300,000
Montana (outside of the commuter belts around the three cities and three largest towns); 450,000
Idaho (outside of commuter belts): 430,000
Wyoming (outside of commuter belts): 370,000
Nevada (outside the LV and Reno commuter belts: ~140,000
Utah (outside of commuter belts): 360,000
Arizona (outside commuter belts around Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, &c): 400,000
New Mexico (outside commuter belts around Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Santa Fe): 700,000
Colorado (outside of commuter belts around Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Boulder, Pueblo, Grand Junction): 720,000
Texas: (north of Amarillo + the area east of El Paso and west of an arc running from Odessa to San Angelo to Laredo): ~300,000
Oklahoma (outside main commuter belts): 2.2 million
Kansas: (outside of commuter belts around Kansas City, Wichita, Lawrence, Topeka, &c).: 860,000
Nebraska (outside commuter belts around Omaha, Lincoln, and Grand Island): 460,000
South Dakota (outside main commuter belts): 470,000
North Dakota (outside four main commuter belts): 250,000
Minnesota iron range: 275,000
Michigan upper peninsula: 250,000
Maine: northern and easternmost portion: 400,000
Virgin Islands: 110,000
About 3% of the population of the United States lives in these places. I don’t think that’s because they’ve been priced out of exurban dwellings elsewhere.
Absurd, some might argue these population stats would justify abolition of the Electoral College.
The truth is that about 75% of America lives in the 20 largest states. Yet the 30 smallest have the majority of Senators! So there alone you can see how small states have a disproportionate say over national policies.
right right seth like i said don’t pretend you care about the rural areas Mister Abolish the Electoral College guy. lol
eventually it may be like the “Hunger Games” where there is one or a handful of megapolises which rule the roost and then there are all the peasants off in the hinterland who are essentially second class citizens
maybe that’s how some of these protesters feel already? just maybe?
Kurtz, Paint Chips believes in slavery. If 51% wish to make slaves of the other 49% Paint Chips agrees (that is until he is one of the 49%)
Kurtz, if the smaller states and rural areas want to be treated fairly and equitably by the emerging much larger urban/suburban population, they might try not ripping off SC justices, filibustering elected Senate majorities (the GOP Senate minority from 2006-2014 ran more filibusters than in our entire previous history), not trying to suppress the votes of others, or resisting reforms to an EC that has given 2 of the last 5 elections to the loser (Winner-take-all state state EC contests are not in the Constitution, nor did they start that way. Representative proportioning would be constitutional and equitable).
Absurd, some might argue these population stats would justify abolition of the Electoral College.
Does your brain have to default to some inane Democratic Party talking point in every discussion?
Absurd, what’s wrong? You don’t like the stats you posted?
right right seth like i said don’t pretend you care about the rural areas Mister Abolish the Electoral College guy. lol
eventually it may be like the “Hunger Games” where there is one or a handful of megapolises which rule the roost and then there are all the peasants off in the hinterland who are essentially second class citizens
maybe that’s how some of these protesters feel already? just maybe?
Huh? Settlements in Kansas and Nebraska which did not have a critical mass of residents ca. 1950 have been imploding demographically, in some cases since the Depression. There are some other similarly distressed areas, like West Virginia south of the Huntington – Charleston meridian. There are other places which are suffering a loss of relative position as new additions to population are attracted to poles elsewhere. Population stability is not inconsistent with quality of life.
Kurtz, look at the population of the following settlements as a share of the national population, in 1970 and today.
New York (19 counties): 8.2% > 5.6%
Los Angeles (4 counties): 4.7% > 5.4%
Chicago (9 counties): 3.6% > 2.8%
Philadelphia (9 counties): 2.6% > 1.6%
Detroit (4 counties): 2.2% > 1.3%
San Francisco (7 counties): 2.1% > 2.2%
Boston (5 counties): 1.8% > 1.3%
Washington (11 jurisdictions): 1.4% > 1.6%
Minneapolis (7 counties): 0.9% > 0.9%
Seattle (3 counties): 0.9% > 1.3%
San Diego (1 county): 0.7% > 1.0%
Phoenix (1 county): 0.5% > 1.4%
Some of these places have improved their relative position, some have grown contextually less consequential. I’m not seeing the country’s leading cities are any more of a magnet for the country’s residents than they were 50 years ago. The share of the general population they encompass in sum remained about the same.
Absurd, what’s wrong? You don’t like the stats you posted?
You’ve understood nothing of the significance of my exchange with that man.
absurd i suspect your stats are based on city borders
chicago population has declined but the collar counties combined, up
major metros was my term and it means not just inside city borders
the major metro sprawls are drawing more population, this is my hypothesis, if you can disprove it with a wider geographical definition of a city then i would credit your analysis, but again i suspect you are taking a narrower definition of big city than i am
absurd i suspect your stats are based on city borders
As I made clear, NO. Every county which incorporates a critical mass of tract development is included. The whole metropolitan settlement (and a modest corona of countryside) is included.
Absurd, your comparisons to 1970 are patently misleading. Your list Excludes Houston, Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Seattle and South Florida.
Nice try at deception
Absurd, your comparisons to 1970 are patently misleading. Your list Excludes Houston, Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Seattle and South Florida.
Nice try at deception
Before you accuse me of deception, you might attempt to understand what the discussion was about. I hadn’t any interest in your kvetching about the electoral college, which was and is an irrelevancy you insisted on injecting.
This aspect of the discussion concerns Kurtz contention that the countryside was emptying out and people were collecting in megapoles. Which isn’t the case. Including Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Denver wouldn’t change the picture much. And I actually did include Phoenix and Seattle. There weren’t that many cities on the list, so it’s pretty careless of you to complain about that. As for Austin and Portland, they’re second tier cities and not the most populous of the second tier cities either, so I don’t know why I would address that.
well this conversation makes me think that perhaps my perception was a little off, and maybe the concentration is more in those second tier city areas
I am not the only person who perceives a depopulation from rural areas, here is a study that seems to suggest the same thing, perhaps we could learn more precisely what is happening in this important social trend? perhaps it has a different shape than i suggested
but, i am pretty confident small towns have not flourished. i drive through a lot of small towns the past 30 years out here in the midwest and most of them are more defunct than they used to be.
https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation
Im always interested in making my impressions more precise and factually based
About 30% of the counties in the U.S. are losing population. The thing is (1) they’re generally not imploding all that quickly (which core cities were between 1925 and 1990), and (2) the counties in question encompass a modest minority of the non metropolitan population in the country. There are quite a mess of counties which had tiny populations in 1930 and have tinier populations today.
Kansas and Nebraska as a whole are not imploding. The cities are increasing, towns over 15,000 in population are at least holding their own, small towns and service villages have been imploding at a rate of x% per year, and the countryside has been imploding about 2x as fast.
I recommend Pod Cities, and the spreading out of people into these Pod Cities. The US needs electromagnetic fast trains or cars that run on them, delivery by drone or robotic trucks, and city centers with infrastructure, specifically utility and water. Remote work, as seen, can be done anywhere, so…
There is no need for high skyscrapers or lots of leased business locations. Ppl should go into work 2-3 per week, in shared office spaces for in-person meetings, but can really work from home, most of the time. Then, perhaps, eveyome could spread out more, and live where ever, have a piece of land. No more clogged freeways or highways, no more pollution.
Hopefully, when it is all done, animals and the natural environemnt will grow back more…
“ What a narrow minded, heartless, selfish poor excuse you are for a human being.”
Bob, I se you have met This is s turd. Spoiler alert – he is on your side.
I enjoyed reading this article, as well as Federalist Paper 69. Learn something new today.
Then this would indicate that Americans are healthier than ever. Medical procedures are streamlined for efficiency, requiring less hospital days, and health care executives are making decisions to cut the waste and non-needed. But then, it has been CHINA where the last 5 epidemics have originated. And a pandemic. WTF?
Thank the federal government policy for many of their closures and also thank Obamacare. Federal policy has pushed consolidation. Paint Chips, if you don’t know what the word “consolidation” means look it up.
That is a seperate issue. Mr and Mrs. Hill are losing their home because their business is shut down and their business will be gone along with car so that after the Pandemic quarantine’s are over they will not be able to restart their businesses. Thus Democrats had to add more things to the first relief package to cause havoc and now to continue a program that all politicians seem to agree is doing well they will put a wrench in it like before.
Rural hospitals need help but that is not what Democrats are talking about. Tell us which hospitals you think need to be bailed out as an emergency? Hospitals connected to Yale, Harvard and NYU? Many of the one’s hit hardest like some of the one’s in NYC actually are state or city funded and have received the bulk of materials needed from the federal government. How many thousands of beds supplemented NYC already? Money is not an emergency in this case while it appears Congress thinks it an emergency to continue the funding of the next $250 Billion. You hate people that can actualy start their own businesses and employ people.
If you’re arguing that hospitals need no financial help during this pandemic, that premise seems to ring a ‘No Sale’ to anyone following news.
Be specific. Let us hear from you the hospitals or hospital corporations that will go out of business and not be able to return. Let’s be specific as to who needs the money and why. Should we give money to hospitals that were unprepared? I already brought up hospitals associated with places like Yale, Harvard and NYU asking if you think those institutions need to be bailed out to prevent bankruptcy. Trump is already devising plans for rural hospitals. Absent specificity your comments are entirely meaningless.
Why don’t the hospitals just put together an invoice so the actual amount is documented? Typical of Congressional people – just throw a bunch of money at it. That should fix it! Just more of the same BS.
Many, if not most hospitals are playing games with their charges and probably don’t even know the actual cost of a service. Their bills make no sense and rip people off that do not have insurance. I had a bill that was 20 times what my insurer ended up paying. That is the cash price for those who have to pay cash. An invoice from the hospital to the government would be like enabling the hospital to print money.
“small business relief”? How laughable, given that the Ruth’s Chris’s Steakhouse chain snarfed up $20 million of our money, depleting the fund for actual small businesses that really need it. How many small businesses could this money have helped? There are numerous stories about small business owners trying for days just to get someone on the line, and by the time they got through, the money was all gone.
Today’s post is just another example of Trump’s outrageous delusions of grandeur and power.
Yes, grievous for sure. But lets not forget the $25 Million to the Kennedy Center??
Don’t throw stones at your own glass house, OK?
Bob, explain why Kennedy Center wouldn’t be losing money like any other business?
It’s a low interest loan. The loan is only forgiven if over 75% of the money goes to keeping employees working.
What do you have against helping support working people? I have no feelings towards Ruth Chris but it is a franchise so the actual owner is a small business owner who owns one or a couple of restaurants. I think there are around 150 Ruth Chris restaurants so divide the $20million by 150 and give 1/4 max to the small business owner. Do you think that amount covers one or more months rent?
I am not claiming to take a position regarding the legislation. I just think it is pretty stupid for people to hang their hats on data that they think looks so bad when they have no knowledge about what they are talking about.
Democrats are thinking if they can hold out for 9 more months they will win the Presidency or control over all of Congress. They will kill and impoverish Americans if they think it will help them. They are wrong.
Too much BS obfuscating the underlying reasons behind any/everything he does: He will remain King at any/all costs. There is no law but his. I wonder if we and Turley will ever understand that?
Trump will not be the first King, hahaha. In modern times, there was FDR and Congress stopped him; then there was Obama, where the courts stopped him.
I understand it. Most of the people here don’t. And Turley is branding and placing product.
The Democrats decided to act politically in the face of the Pandemic greatly endangering the American public. Additionally the Democrats in Congress have not been doing their jobs for years. Their only considerations are political and in being reelected. They say ‘I have only one life to give to my country” so let me do it while eating $15 a pint ice cream out of a $20,000 refrigerator in a huge mansion on the ocean invariably walled off from the people and guarded by those that carry guns. That is a great way to live while not doing one’s job.
Despite the heinous actions of the Democrats in Congress and a number of Republicans as well I think doesn’t give this very great President, Donald Trump, the right to adjourn Congress under the present conditions. Further, it is likely that a Supreme Court challenge would go against him. Unless someone can tell me where I am wrong I think he should not do it and instead continue to act as the lawful President he has been that contrasts with his predecessor.
Maybe Trump bumped his head and he thinks he’s FDR.
You geniuses amaze me! Article 2 Section 3 outlines the relationship between the President and Congress setting the conditions of subservience that the President has to the legislative powers of, the united States, in congress assembled, the established government authority.
Like most Sections and Clauses in the Constitution they not only embody a single concept it usually is one sentence to ensure continuity of related principles, Article 2 Section 3 is no different.
Article. II. Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Basically this Section sets the control over the President by congress. Notice it starts by making the President a principal advisor by directing the President to bring information for measures the President judges as necessary and expedient to Congress for their consideration. This means that everything that is being encountered by the country must be brought to the attention of congress, for their consideration, assembling congress, or the house of congress which is responsible for matter which needs consideration. The President is not a leader or decision maker, the President is only a manager who oversees the day to day operations of the government while congress attends to other matters or recesses. In fact recess appointments can only be made when vacancies occur during the recess of the Senate, and those vacancies cannot be initiated by the President who doesn’t appoint, therefore cannot remove, both actions are vested in the Senate alone!
The disagreement as to when to recess is a dispute between the large and small states which is derived from the balance established in the basic assembly and function of the bicameral legislature. The large States can be upset because of the Small states refusal to concur on measures they want and refuse to adjourn the House until the Senate considers and passes the measures they want, or vice versa, in those cases then the president can step in and resolve the deadlock by adjourning congress to a later time. But if a matter arises that is necessary and expedient the President must convene congress to address that matter, the President doesn’t have any authority to handle the matter or make any decisions regarding the matter under consideration.
The only instance where the President can act without congress is cited in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution;
Article. IV. Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Notice it states that the executive can only act when the legislature cannot be convened, which today with technology and the constant presence of congress, would never arise.
If you still don’t understand then read the conclusion of the Executive by Hamilton in Federalist #77 where he states that the President was put constantly under the control of a branch of congress, that is the ultimate safeguard established by constitution against presidential overreach!
I suspect it’s a whiff of grapeshot.
He does have a franchise to adjourn Congress. Not sure what the trigger is. My rough impression is that the provision is a failsafe in case the chambers cannot agree on an adjournment date. That wouldn’t apply in this situation. Prior to 1933, Congress did not assemble until more than a year after it was elected. Under the old regime, we’d now be 4 months and change through set of sessions 11 to 15 months in duration.
No, he does not have any “franchise” to adjourn Congress. Read the post. This very limited power exists only if the houses of Congress disagree about adjournment, so he breaks the stalemate. We don’t have a stalemate–both Houses agreed. Congress remains in session by agreement.
Here we have an illegitimate election cheater failed businessman reality TV star who gets off on asserting power over others. He’s trying to force Congress to approve his hand-picked losers for top positions, and because he knows it won’t, he’s trying to circumvent the right of Congress to approve or veto appointments by making recess appointments, except that Congress is not in recess. Congress is working remotely, just like most of America. Does that stop him? Hell no. He’s going to try to force Congress by fiat to go into recess. That has never been done. The wording of the Constitution makes clear it cannot be done.
How much does it take for even you Trumpsters to appreciate the extent of outrageousness and unfitness for office of this person who perceives himself above Congress and the rights of the American people?
Thanks for the display of Tourette’s. Always a pleasure.
A most clumsy deflection.
Nancy Pelosi says it’s safe to come to Chinatown in San Francisco. That was after Nancy sat on the 2 articles of impeachment and then ripped up a copy of the state of the union address, live on TV.
What you call the “State of the Union” address was a campaign commercial–rife with lies, arrogant bragging, and trading on the accomplishments of people like the Tuskeegee airman. The worst was giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to that outrageously partisan liar Rush Limbaugh. Previous recipients included Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa. Does that swine going by the name of “Rush Limbaugh” belong in their company? This was a disgusting display of raw arrogance and narcissism. She should have walked out before he was finished.
Some of the lies, just about the economy which has since gone to hell: job growth was higher under Obama, the economy grew more under Kennedy, Obama and Jimmy Carter. Real wages, adjusted for inflation rose more slowly under Trump than Obama. The GDP was a statistical tie. The recovery started under Obama flattened under Trump. Trump keeps lying that he created the most-successful economy in the history of mankind. All of the economic growth started by Obama after the 2008 recession is now gone and we are in another recession, mostly because Trump was too arrogant to accept the advice of the Obama administration on how to handle a pandemic. He wouldn’t listen to or act on briefings, he downplayed it, called it a “hoax”, promised a vaccine “very quickly”, recommended an untested and unproven drug, and is now siding with protests against Democratic governors who have closed down schools and businesses to save lives. He is confiscating PPE and ventilators ordered and paid for by states, which are forced to compete against one another, instead of coordinating a national response to the crisis. He claims absolute power, but accepts no responsibility. His mishandling of the pandemic is borderline criminal.
“Does that swine going by the name of “Rush Limbaugh” belong in their company? ”
Not a swine, rather, an entertaining radio personality. one of the most listened to radio shows in american history. your contempt for your fellow citizens oozes from every post you make.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs
but then again, I liked Gordon Liddy’s show and Howard Stern’s, in a lineup on the radio many years ago,and another favorite on WLS was the one with “Fast Eddie” Vyrdolyak, a legendary lawyer of Chicago
chacun a son gout
You’ll notice Natacha loathes Limbaugh and Kellyanne Conway. Both work in media. One is a defining voice of the age and the other is more accomplished than most in her trade. Natacha will never have what either have acquired.
Both Conway and Limbaugh are studied liars – unlike Trump who is promiscuous – and no one of even moderate intelligence – even if they were simpatico politically – would call them accomplished at anything honest adults should aspire to.
It’s funny but the biggest liar on the blog is complaining that others lie. Limbaugh publishes what he says so you can go over to his site read it and separate opinion from fact. Then show us the facts he lied about. You won’t and you can’t.
Both Conway and Limbaugh are studied liars –
I’d suggest the life of the people around you would improve if you would stop projecting, but I figure you’re a finished product and they’re inured to it.
If one may say that Howard Stern is an accomplished radio host, then Limbaugh who had a bigger audience, is certainly accomplished too.
radio shows are a business and it’s not my business but they were obviously both big winners in the field
perhaps i have a person of lower intelligence than you book but i am smart enough to credit obvious results which are so easily measured. i believe the proof was in the link i gave earlier
i tell you if the price of oil doesnt bounce back soon, then trifles like Neiman Marcup filing BK will seem like a trifle in two weeks time
war is the single easiest way that both russia, iran, and the US could get together and “stimulate demand.” remember. if war breaks out in the next month, you read it here first. the virus set the ball in motion, but the oil price collapse was the one thing that set it all off
https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-drops-to-21-year-low-with-storage-filling-as-demand-shrivels
Taged, Puppet, Mon, 4/20 0104
Natacha disregard. Wrong box.
What is Wrong with Seth? Now he is tagging comments?
What’s wrong with Seth is an empty sock puppet.
You’re as bad as Paul, Seth, with his nutty comments to DBB.
Anonymous tagged, sucky puppet
Don’t ask us what “tagged” means but our resident cray cray Seth thinks it means something so let’s all follow along
bwahahahaha
Another nutter heard from @ 3:20 PM.
And you’re the one arranging all these puppets
Did you see this?
Pelosi is hearless and vile
Who knew Congress was in session? Sure not from its activity.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-do-nothing-congress-prefers-theatrics-over-doing-its-job
Can you address the question of Congress nullifying the president’s recess power by using pro forma sessions.
How did Hitler get into office? Mussolini? Franco? Nixon?
All elected?
Let us know.
Why don’t you tell us?
..as opposed to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro?
Tagged-Puppet-Mon,4/20, 0101
No, no, and no. Germany and Italy had multi-party parliamentary systems. The Chancellor / Prime Minister’s office was held by appointment of the head of state talking into account the balance of forces in the legislature. As for Franco, he seized the state by force.
Not sure why you added Richard Nixon to the list, who has little or nothing in common with these others.
Absurd– Nice corrective to his confused history.
I just want to know if any were elected or appointed by an elected parliament. Nixon got kicked out.
Don’t change dicks in the middle of a screw vote for Hitler in 42!
Nixon was not kicked out. He resigned.
Young – I think Nixon was oh so brutally pushed out of office. 😉
I’m so glad Nixon has been brought up. I have some lost tapes of Nixon, talking about all sorts of stuff, and a girl be like Whoa!
https://youtu.be/Iu3f5KBpkAw
His words, not mine.
The AHC channel has a series addressing the exact question you asked about how Hitler got into power, and it is very good. The next time it’s on your cable channel line up you should watch. Basically, the German people and their economy were decimated after WWI. Hitler had been a soldier, and had failed twice to gain admission into the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts, because his work, while competent, lacked soulfulness. He was depressed, and his life wasn’t going anyplace. Hitler tapped into the German people’s national morose while running for office, starting with a small minority party that spouted rhetoric blaming all of Germany’s ills on Jews: they didn’t support the Deutschland in the war, they cheat people and that’s how they got rich, they are of a different heritage than the Aryan heritage, which is superior, they take advantage of us, they are infiltrating universities and the business world. Eventually, the rhetoric took hold, Hitler’s power increased, and the Nazi party emerged. Nazis took over newspapers and radio stations, spreading the anti-Semitism message, and they encouraged German people to refuse to trade with Jews and to abuse them. Eventually, Jews were no longer allowed to emigrate, they were forced to wear the Star of David, synagogues were closed, Jewish children were banned from attending schools and adults from working. Their businesses were forced out, they were rounded up, their possessions confiscated, they were confined to ghettos, and next, to concentration camps. The rest is history.
It all began with tapping into the emotions of people who felt they were getting a raw deal, harnessing that resentment, all of which morphed into support for a narcissistic figure who pandered to that resentment who had previously failed at practically everything and who assumed near-deity status by using the media to channel that resentment and lying about targets of that resentment. Sound at all familiar?
as if hitler invented blaming jews for stuff.
lady what you know about history fits in a thimble
btw what’s a “national morose”
“During a pandemic, there has never been a more important time for “regular order” and bipartisanship in Congress. Citing the current emergency is hardly compelling when Congress is scheduled to resume full business in just two weeks on May 4 and can resume business at any time in this pro forma status. A pandemic is not an invitation for pandemonium.”
If this is NOT the time to use this power, when the House and Senate think it’s OK to leave and not do the countries business, just WHEN IN THE HELL would it take to get Congress to stop acting like spoiled rich kids and take care of business?
They should be ashamed of themselves, but for the most part, they have no shame!
One of the difficulties is that Democratic politicians and street-level Democrats alike have no objects that transcend mundane political bickering. This problem is not symmetric, btw.
Early retirement for the Bums.
Nancy “Antoinette” Pelosi went on the “Late Late Show” and showed Americans her refrigerator that costs over $20,000 while serving herself ice cream that costs over $15/pint.
Congress should have been closed long ago but now more than ever especially since Pelosi delayed a coronavirus stimulus package to favor pork spending: collective bargaining powers for unions, increased fuel emissions standards for airlines and expanded wind and solar tax credits.
The Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank saw 860 people line up for miles in vehicles and wait hours, according to a report published April 6. Daniel Laughlin claimed he got in line at 9 a.m., although the food bank didn’t even open until noon.
“When you only collect social security, it’s already gone,” Laughlin told CBS Pittsburgh.
10,000 families showed up to a food bank April 9 in San Antonio, Texas. The San Antonio Food Bank only prepared for 6,000, according to CEO Eric Cooper.
“I wish we could’ve got to them faster and been able to meet that need a little smoother than having to sit out in a parking lot and wait, but it was just unprecedented the need is so great at this time,” Cooper told KENS5, a CBS affiliate.
Pelosi, however, has an “impressive stock of ice cream” stored in her freezer, according to the Rolling Stone.
Daily Caller
She continues to stick her thumb in the eye of Americans!
Well, I sure hope Trump gets away with it.
It it’s Constitutional it’s a case of those who profess no knowledge of such a never been done before thing who have been getting away with it. Such as ignoring The Constitution and we’ve seen ample evidence of that recently. Pelosi illegally seating four Representatives, Obama making deals on his own as if he had the power and then refusing to submit them to the Senate for confirmation. The acts of Lincoln, through FDR through LBJ in using the draft which is still in effect. Obama unilaterally victimizing those who did not want insurance or did not need insurance and fining them $500 Clinton telling his staff to find away around the Constitution,
It reminds me of the stupid comment on unfettered Capitalism when Capitalism short of a yard sale has NEVER been unfettered.
Now we have Pelosi selling committee seats and Ocasio raising funds claiming it’s for others then using it for herself.
But the worst is the now common taking the Oath of Office and then instantly violating it.
Nothing new there except the Citizens shirking their responsibilities while whining about their rights.
The one that irks me the most is the unthinking comment ‘thanks for serving your country’ when our Oat of Office clearly states we serve one thing and one thing ony. The Constitution. which is more than I can say for most politicians.
24 years Infantry US Army.
An interesting piece. Good someone is willing to take it on for analysis. Enjoy the subtle humor