Trump is going to FORCE democrats to work! Or adjourn them!

[Syriusly]

I doubt Moscow Mitch has the votes to adjourn the Senate right now. Not after that bonehead Navy thing.

Moscow Mitch is certainly a Trump toady- but it is all so he can retain his Senate power. While he will support Trump on most things, he is not going to go along with Trump shutting down the Senate just so Trump can bypass the Senate.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Which is it? Is he going to force the Congress back to work, or is he going to adjourn them? Why do I ask? There is another Trump supporter who has gleefully started a thread saying that Trump is going to adjourn Congress so he can push through his appointees in their absence.

By the way, for those of you who don't know what adjourn means, here ya go.......................

adjourn
[ uh-jurn ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR adjourn ON THESAURUS.COM
verb (used with object)
1. to suspend the meeting of (a club, legislature, committee, etc.) to a future time, another place, or indefinitely: to adjourn the court.
2. to defer or postpone to a later time: They adjourned the meeting until the following Monday.
3. to defer or postpone (a matter) to a future meeting of the same body.
4. to defer or postpone (a matter) to some future time, either specified or not specified.
verb (used without object)
5. to postpone, suspend, or transfer proceedings.
6. to go to another place: to adjourn to the parlor.

Trump is going to FORCE democrats to work! Or adjourn them!

Trump will force democrats to get there ass to work! Or else! God I love this guy! This was just announced live. Link is coming

www.usmessageboard.com

So, which is it? Is Trump going to make them work or send them home? Even you Trump supporters don't know what he's doing or why.

He want them to gavel out so he can appoint people.

 

[Syriusly]

What’s the downside? Congress went on vacation during a national emergency.

Somebody like that motherfucking commie, Barrack Obama coming in and pointing to Trump's actions as precedent and royally fucking us over.

Do not let ANY of them get away with thumbing their noses at the Constitution.

.

What is amusing about your post is that President Obama tried to do pretty much the same thing and the Supreme Court slapped him down.

This is what McConnell said then:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with the ruling: "The President made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even bothering to wait for its advice and consent

That is exactly what Trump is trying to do.

I do NOT support Trump's unconstitutional action.

.

It’s not unConstitutional.

Noel Canning Redux: Justices Breyer and Scalia wrote that the President could use the adjournment power to block Senate "intransigence" (Updated)

Today, President Trump said he could adjourn Congress as a means to make recess appointments. "If the House will not…

reason.com

What Trump has suggested is certainly unconstitutional- since there is no disagreement on the date of adjournment.

But hell- why even pretend- if Trump pissed on the Constitution, and then sold it to Russia, you would be applauding his prudent use of urine and fiscal good sense.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What’s the downside? Congress went on vacation during a national emergency.

Somebody like that motherfucking commie, Barrack Obama coming in and pointing to Trump's actions as precedent and royally fucking us over.

Do not let ANY of them get away with thumbing their noses at the Constitution.

.

What is amusing about your post is that President Obama tried to do pretty much the same thing and the Supreme Court slapped him down.

This is what McConnell said then:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with the ruling: "The President made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even bothering to wait for its advice and consent

That is exactly what Trump is trying to do.

I do NOT support Trump's unconstitutional action.

.

It’s not unConstitutional.

Noel Canning Redux: Justices Breyer and Scalia wrote that the President could use the adjournment power to block Senate "intransigence" (Updated)

Today, President Trump said he could adjourn Congress as a means to make recess appointments. "If the House will not…

reason.com

What Trump has suggested is certainly unconstitutional- since there is no disagreement on the date of adjournment.

But hell- why even pretend- if Trump pissed on the Constitution, and then sold it to Russia, you would be applauding his prudent use of urine and fiscal good sense.

SCOTUS will inform us. And two Justices have already said it’s Constitutional.

 

[bendog]

I doubt Moscow Mitch has the votes to adjourn the Senate right now. Not after that bonehead Navy thing.

Moscow Mitch is certainly a Trump toady- but it is all so he can retain his Senate power. While he will support Trump on most things, he is not going to go along with Trump shutting down the Senate just so Trump can bypass the Senate.

Also, he wouldn't want to set a precedent for a dem potus to adjourn him, as Obama would have done when Moscow Mitch refused hearing on Garland.

 

[Syriusly]

Clash on appointments brews as Trump threatens to invoke little-known power to adjourn Congress

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the president the power to "adjourn [Congress] to such Time as he shall think proper," when the House and Senate cannot agree on when to adjourn. Trump said the Senate should stop conducting its pro forma sessions and formally adjourn to allow him...

www.foxnews.com

A clash over appointments to executive agencies is brewing after President Trump threatened to invoke an obscure constitutional power to adjourn both chambers of Congress under certain circumstances as a way to allow himself to make recess appointments — filling vacancies in jobs he says are needed to help fight the coronavirus without the advice and consent of the Senate.​

​

Presidents have the power under the U.S. Constitution to temporarily fill vacancies while the Senate is out of session, but the body holds what are called "pro forma" sessions – very brief meetings with a skeleton crew that happen when the body is not taking care of legislative business – in order to remain in session, thus blocking recess appointments. Trump wants to use that power to fill vacancies in executive agencies that have been largely neglected by a Senate focused mainly on lifetime judicial appointments....​

​

But Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the president the power to "adjourn [Congress] to such Time as he shall think proper," when the House and Senate cannot agree on when to adjourn. Trump said the Senate should stop conducting its pro forma sessions and formally adjourn to allow him to make recess appointments.​

​

"If the House will not agree to that adjournment I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both chambers of Congress," Trump said. "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."​

And Trump is 100% correct to do so and when the Democrats scream like hell, just sit back and enjoy the mussic knowing it proves you right.

LOL- back in 2014 you called Obama a dictator for making recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader doing this eh?

Literally Trump wants the Senate to adjourn- so Trump can bypass the Constitutional requirement that his nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.

And who are these 'essential nominees' that Trump is so anxious to bypass the Senate to get through?

Michael Pack- to head Voice of America.
Yes absolutely Democrats have opposed him- for legitimate reasons- but again- Republicans control the Senate. Republican Senator James Risch chairs the committee that needs to vote on Pack- and hasn't scheduled a vote.
Do I think that Pack deserves a vote? Absolutely. Republicans in the Senate should absolutely be scheduling a vote.

Because I believe that the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to vote on Presidential nominees.

But I doubt you- or any of the others supporting Trump's power grab here felt that way when the Senate refused to vote on Merrit Garland.
Oh wait- lets quote your feelings about when the Senate refused to vote on Garland- your language is so....colorful

JimBowie :Garland was a desperate attempt by a fading Marxist lame duck to push the SCOTUS to the left.

Fuck him for trying that shit, fuck Garland for being a tool, and fuck any Dimmocrat that is going to try and play that stupid bullshit.

Oh my how your tune changes when its a Republican President trying to get his nominees voted on.

 

[Syriusly]

What’s the downside? Congress went on vacation during a national emergency.

Somebody like that motherfucking commie, Barrack Obama coming in and pointing to Trump's actions as precedent and royally fucking us over.

Do not let ANY of them get away with thumbing their noses at the Constitution.

.

What is amusing about your post is that President Obama tried to do pretty much the same thing and the Supreme Court slapped him down.

This is what McConnell said then:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with the ruling: "The President made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even bothering to wait for its advice and consent

That is exactly what Trump is trying to do.

I do NOT support Trump's unconstitutional action.

.

It’s not unConstitutional.

Noel Canning Redux: Justices Breyer and Scalia wrote that the President could use the adjournment power to block Senate "intransigence" (Updated)

Today, President Trump said he could adjourn Congress as a means to make recess appointments. "If the House will not…

reason.com

What Trump has suggested is certainly unconstitutional- since there is no disagreement on the date of adjournment.

But hell- why even pretend- if Trump pissed on the Constitution, and then sold it to Russia, you would be applauding his prudent use of urine and fiscal good sense.

SCOTUS will inform us. And two Justices have already said it’s Constitutional.

Really doesn't matter.

We all know that this is just another attempt by Trump to blame Democrats for his own failures- especially his failure as a leader during this pandemic.

 

[Mr Natural]

And besides, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government and who better to be a dictator than St Trumpy himself.

 

[Syriusly]

So he's gonna shut down Congress in the middle of a pandemic crisis, just so he can get his officials in without a vote? Trump is going further and further off the rails in his power grabs.

The House already shut down until May 4.

Democrats meet by phone after House postpones reconvening until May 4 - Washington Examiner

House lawmakers won't return to the Capitol until May 4 or later due to the threat of the coronavirus Democratic leaders told rank-and-file members on Monday.The move extends a prolonged recess that began in March 12, and it abandons a plan to reconvene on April 20. "Members are further advised...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

~~~~~~
Actually what Trump is doing is to shut down the Pro Forma Session of Congress. Which means, "it is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. It is a Latin term meaning “in form only.”"
Therefore, at that point the President has the authority to shut it down...

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that- the Senate is in session whenever it says it is in session- not when the President says it is in session.

Of course back in 2017 you were quite happy that the Senate was working to block Obama's recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader not getting his way.

 

[BS Filter]

Nothing to worry about. The President has a pen and a phone. Everything is cool.

 

[Syriusly]

Trump’s comment is obviously trolling. No one takes it seriously other than the very poorly informed Trump supporters.

After thinking about it a bit, I'm beginning to agree it was trolling. As a reality tv host, he knows how to get attention. Too bad it makes him look like an uneducated gasbag.

Trolling- or a tantrum.

His base loves him when he does other. Frankly his base loves him whenever he suggest some unconstitutional power grab.

In this case pretty sure its to start a new controversy to distract people from his dismal leadership during this pandemic- and so people won't be paying attention to how Trump is trying to blame everyone else in the entire world- other than himself- for the U.S. not being prepared for this pandemic.

 

[BS Filter]

So he's gonna shut down Congress in the middle of a pandemic crisis, just so he can get his officials in without a vote? Trump is going further and further off the rails in his power grabs.

The House already shut down until May 4.

Democrats meet by phone after House postpones reconvening until May 4 - Washington Examiner

House lawmakers won't return to the Capitol until May 4 or later due to the threat of the coronavirus Democratic leaders told rank-and-file members on Monday.The move extends a prolonged recess that began in March 12, and it abandons a plan to reconvene on April 20. "Members are further advised...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

~~~~~~
Actually what Trump is doing is to shut down the Pro Forma Session of Congress. Which means, "it is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. It is a Latin term meaning “in form only.”"
Therefore, at that point the President has the authority to shut it down...

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that- the Senate is in session whenever it says it is in session- not when the President says it is in session.

Of course back in 2017 you were quite happy that the Senate was working to block Obama's recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader not getting his way.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So he's gonna shut down Congress in the middle of a pandemic crisis, just so he can get his officials in without a vote? Trump is going further and further off the rails in his power grabs.

The House already shut down until May 4.

Democrats meet by phone after House postpones reconvening until May 4 - Washington Examiner

House lawmakers won't return to the Capitol until May 4 or later due to the threat of the coronavirus Democratic leaders told rank-and-file members on Monday.The move extends a prolonged recess that began in March 12, and it abandons a plan to reconvene on April 20. "Members are further advised...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

~~~~~~
Actually what Trump is doing is to shut down the Pro Forma Session of Congress. Which means, "it is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. It is a Latin term meaning “in form only.”"
Therefore, at that point the President has the authority to shut it down...

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that- the Senate is in session whenever it says it is in session- not when the President says it is in session.

Of course back in 2017 you were quite happy that the Senate was working to block Obama's recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader not getting his way.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

This, from the heritage foundation link, is why I oppose Trump's threat:

Convening of Congress
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3
[The President] 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....
Under British practice, the king could convene or dissolve Parliament at will. This powerful right was naturally a source of tension between the crown and Parliament. Kings wielded this power as they wished but would have to re-convene Parliament when they wanted more money. The right to dissolve or convene Parliaments bred dangerous instability and was one of the driving forces of the English Civil War (1642–1651), which was, at bottom, a war of institutions: the Parliament against the crown.
The experience of England was fresh in the mind of the American founders when they issued the Declaration of Independence, for in many ways the Americans believed they were replicating the Glorious Revolution of 1688:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for, opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . .

That American statesmen learned well from the experience of England can also be seen in the state constitutions that were drafted between the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Convention. Under nine of the state constitutions adopted during that period, the governor had no power to “prorogue, dissolve, or adjourn” the legislature.
With the Framers’ knowledge of English history, their experience with King George III, and the practice of the states, it is no surprise that the decision to give the executive of the United States little authority over when and where Congress should meet appeared to pass the Convention with no debate, following the proposal first made in the Committee of Detail. The Constitution insists that Congress’s right to convene must be independent of the will of the executive. Article I, Section 4, Clause 2. “Each house,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1790, had a “natural right to meet when and where it should think best.”
Nonetheless, the Framers also understood that the government must be able to meet exigent circumstances and therefore gave the president the very limited power to convene Congress “on extraordinary occasions.” Justice Joseph Story indicated in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) that the president’s need to conduct foreign relations effectively would be the primary motive for convening Congress. He gave as examples the need “to repel foreign aggressions, depredations, and direct hostilities; to provide adequate means to mitigate, or overcome unexpected calamities; to suppress insurrections; and to provide for innumerable other important exigencies, arising out of the intercourse and revolutions among nations.”
Beginning with John Adams in 1797, the president has convened both the House and the Senate twenty-seven times, normally for crises such as war, economic emergency, or critical legislation. In addition, the president has called the Senate to meet to confirm nominations. With the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment, which brought forward the date on which Congress convenes, and with the practice of Congress to remain in session twelve months out of the year, there is practically no need for the president to call extraordinary sessions anymore. President Harry S. Truman called the last special session on July 26, 1948.
Of course, even more important to the Framers was limiting the power of the executive to dissolve the legislature. They understood from English history that such power was among the quickest routes to tyranny. Under the Constitution, therefore, as Alexander Hamilton explained, “[t]he President can only adjourn the national Legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.” The Federalist No. 69. It is only an administrative power, one that the president has never had to exercise.

 

[BS Filter]

So he's gonna shut down Congress in the middle of a pandemic crisis, just so he can get his officials in without a vote? Trump is going further and further off the rails in his power grabs.

The House already shut down until May 4.

Democrats meet by phone after House postpones reconvening until May 4 - Washington Examiner

House lawmakers won't return to the Capitol until May 4 or later due to the threat of the coronavirus Democratic leaders told rank-and-file members on Monday.The move extends a prolonged recess that began in March 12, and it abandons a plan to reconvene on April 20. "Members are further advised...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

~~~~~~
Actually what Trump is doing is to shut down the Pro Forma Session of Congress. Which means, "it is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. It is a Latin term meaning “in form only.”"
Therefore, at that point the President has the authority to shut it down...

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that- the Senate is in session whenever it says it is in session- not when the President says it is in session.

Of course back in 2017 you were quite happy that the Senate was working to block Obama's recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader not getting his way.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

This, from the heritage foundation link, is why I oppose Trump's threat:

Convening of Congress
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3
[The President] 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....
Under British practice, the king could convene or dissolve Parliament at will. This powerful right was naturally a source of tension between the crown and Parliament. Kings wielded this power as they wished but would have to re-convene Parliament when they wanted more money. The right to dissolve or convene Parliaments bred dangerous instability and was one of the driving forces of the English Civil War (1642–1651), which was, at bottom, a war of institutions: the Parliament against the crown.
The experience of England was fresh in the mind of the American founders when they issued the Declaration of Independence, for in many ways the Americans believed they were replicating the Glorious Revolution of 1688:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for, opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . .

That American statesmen learned well from the experience of England can also be seen in the state constitutions that were drafted between the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Convention. Under nine of the state constitutions adopted during that period, the governor had no power to “prorogue, dissolve, or adjourn” the legislature.
With the Framers’ knowledge of English history, their experience with King George III, and the practice of the states, it is no surprise that the decision to give the executive of the United States little authority over when and where Congress should meet appeared to pass the Convention with no debate, following the proposal first made in the Committee of Detail. The Constitution insists that Congress’s right to convene must be independent of the will of the executive. Article I, Section 4, Clause 2. “Each house,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1790, had a “natural right to meet when and where it should think best.”
Nonetheless, the Framers also understood that the government must be able to meet exigent circumstances and therefore gave the president the very limited power to convene Congress “on extraordinary occasions.” Justice Joseph Story indicated in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) that the president’s need to conduct foreign relations effectively would be the primary motive for convening Congress. He gave as examples the need “to repel foreign aggressions, depredations, and direct hostilities; to provide adequate means to mitigate, or overcome unexpected calamities; to suppress insurrections; and to provide for innumerable other important exigencies, arising out of the intercourse and revolutions among nations.”
Beginning with John Adams in 1797, the president has convened both the House and the Senate twenty-seven times, normally for crises such as war, economic emergency, or critical legislation. In addition, the president has called the Senate to meet to confirm nominations. With the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment, which brought forward the date on which Congress convenes, and with the practice of Congress to remain in session twelve months out of the year, there is practically no need for the president to call extraordinary sessions anymore. President Harry S. Truman called the last special session on July 26, 1948.
Of course, even more important to the Framers was limiting the power of the executive to dissolve the legislature. They understood from English history that such power was among the quickest routes to tyranny. Under the Constitution, therefore, as Alexander Hamilton explained, “[t]he President can only adjourn the national Legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.” The Federalist No. 69. It is only an administrative power, one that the president has never had to exercise.

Yet, it is Constitutional.

 

[Toro]

Trump will force democrats to get there ass to work! Or else!

God I love this guy!

This was just announced live. Link is coming

Maybe he could force you to get a full-time job.

 

[Jitss617]

Trump will force democrats to get there ass to work! Or else!

God I love this guy!

This was just announced live. Link is coming

Maybe he could force you to get a full-time job.

Hey it’s my stalker what’s up buddy ha

 

[Mr Natural]

Maybe he could force you to get a full-time job.

No need for bus boys and dishwashers when the restaurants are all closed.

 

[bendog]

Trump’s comment is obviously trolling. No one takes it seriously other than the very poorly informed Trump supporters.

After thinking about it a bit, I'm beginning to agree it was trolling. As a reality tv host, he knows how to get attention. Too bad it makes him look like an uneducated gasbag.

Trolling- or a tantrum.

His base loves him when he does other. Frankly his base loves him whenever he suggest some unconstitutional power grab.

In this case pretty sure its to start a new controversy to distract people from his dismal leadership during this pandemic- and so people won't be paying attention to how Trump is trying to blame everyone else in the entire world- other than himself- for the U.S. not being prepared for this pandemic.

So he's gonna shut down Congress in the middle of a pandemic crisis, just so he can get his officials in without a vote? Trump is going further and further off the rails in his power grabs.

The House already shut down until May 4.

Democrats meet by phone after House postpones reconvening until May 4 - Washington Examiner

House lawmakers won't return to the Capitol until May 4 or later due to the threat of the coronavirus Democratic leaders told rank-and-file members on Monday.The move extends a prolonged recess that began in March 12, and it abandons a plan to reconvene on April 20. "Members are further advised...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

~~~~~~
Actually what Trump is doing is to shut down the Pro Forma Session of Congress. Which means, "it is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. It is a Latin term meaning “in form only.”"
Therefore, at that point the President has the authority to shut it down...

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that- the Senate is in session whenever it says it is in session- not when the President says it is in session.

Of course back in 2017 you were quite happy that the Senate was working to block Obama's recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader not getting his way.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

This, from the heritage foundation link, is why I oppose Trump's threat:

Convening of Congress
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3
[The President] 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....
Under British practice, the king could convene or dissolve Parliament at will. This powerful right was naturally a source of tension between the crown and Parliament. Kings wielded this power as they wished but would have to re-convene Parliament when they wanted more money. The right to dissolve or convene Parliaments bred dangerous instability and was one of the driving forces of the English Civil War (1642–1651), which was, at bottom, a war of institutions: the Parliament against the crown.
The experience of England was fresh in the mind of the American founders when they issued the Declaration of Independence, for in many ways the Americans believed they were replicating the Glorious Revolution of 1688:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for, opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . .

That American statesmen learned well from the experience of England can also be seen in the state constitutions that were drafted between the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Convention. Under nine of the state constitutions adopted during that period, the governor had no power to “prorogue, dissolve, or adjourn” the legislature.
With the Framers’ knowledge of English history, their experience with King George III, and the practice of the states, it is no surprise that the decision to give the executive of the United States little authority over when and where Congress should meet appeared to pass the Convention with no debate, following the proposal first made in the Committee of Detail. The Constitution insists that Congress’s right to convene must be independent of the will of the executive. Article I, Section 4, Clause 2. “Each house,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1790, had a “natural right to meet when and where it should think best.”
Nonetheless, the Framers also understood that the government must be able to meet exigent circumstances and therefore gave the president the very limited power to convene Congress “on extraordinary occasions.” Justice Joseph Story indicated in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) that the president’s need to conduct foreign relations effectively would be the primary motive for convening Congress. He gave as examples the need “to repel foreign aggressions, depredations, and direct hostilities; to provide adequate means to mitigate, or overcome unexpected calamities; to suppress insurrections; and to provide for innumerable other important exigencies, arising out of the intercourse and revolutions among nations.”
Beginning with John Adams in 1797, the president has convened both the House and the Senate twenty-seven times, normally for crises such as war, economic emergency, or critical legislation. In addition, the president has called the Senate to meet to confirm nominations. With the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment, which brought forward the date on which Congress convenes, and with the practice of Congress to remain in session twelve months out of the year, there is practically no need for the president to call extraordinary sessions anymore. President Harry S. Truman called the last special session on July 26, 1948.
Of course, even more important to the Framers was limiting the power of the executive to dissolve the legislature. They understood from English history that such power was among the quickest routes to tyranny. Under the Constitution, therefore, as Alexander Hamilton explained, “[t]he President can only adjourn the national Legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.” The Federalist No. 69. It is only an administrative power, one that the president has never had to exercise.

Yet, it is Constitutional.

No. Not unless the Scroutus changes its holding from when Obama was potus. See above. Congress is in session when it says it's in session. But if either the House or Senate disagrees with the other body about being in session, then Trump or another potus can adjourn the one not in session.

One more time Art 2 Sec 3

but it's all a Trumpian charade to hide numbers of dead from you

 

[Jitss617]

Maybe he could force you to get a full-time job.

No need for bus boys and dishwashers when the restaurants are all closed.

Why do you make fun of these jobs?

 

[BS Filter]

Trump’s comment is obviously trolling. No one takes it seriously other than the very poorly informed Trump supporters.

After thinking about it a bit, I'm beginning to agree it was trolling. As a reality tv host, he knows how to get attention. Too bad it makes him look like an uneducated gasbag.

Trolling- or a tantrum.

His base loves him when he does other. Frankly his base loves him whenever he suggest some unconstitutional power grab.

In this case pretty sure its to start a new controversy to distract people from his dismal leadership during this pandemic- and so people won't be paying attention to how Trump is trying to blame everyone else in the entire world- other than himself- for the U.S. not being prepared for this pandemic.

So he's gonna shut down Congress in the middle of a pandemic crisis, just so he can get his officials in without a vote? Trump is going further and further off the rails in his power grabs.

The House already shut down until May 4.

Democrats meet by phone after House postpones reconvening until May 4 - Washington Examiner

House lawmakers won't return to the Capitol until May 4 or later due to the threat of the coronavirus Democratic leaders told rank-and-file members on Monday.The move extends a prolonged recess that began in March 12, and it abandons a plan to reconvene on April 20. "Members are further advised...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

~~~~~~
Actually what Trump is doing is to shut down the Pro Forma Session of Congress. Which means, "it is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. It is a Latin term meaning “in form only.”"
Therefore, at that point the President has the authority to shut it down...

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that- the Senate is in session whenever it says it is in session- not when the President says it is in session.

Of course back in 2017 you were quite happy that the Senate was working to block Obama's recess appointments.

My how your tune changes when it is your Dear Leader not getting his way.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution.

www.heritage.org

This, from the heritage foundation link, is why I oppose Trump's threat:

Convening of Congress
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3
[The President] 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....
Under British practice, the king could convene or dissolve Parliament at will. This powerful right was naturally a source of tension between the crown and Parliament. Kings wielded this power as they wished but would have to re-convene Parliament when they wanted more money. The right to dissolve or convene Parliaments bred dangerous instability and was one of the driving forces of the English Civil War (1642–1651), which was, at bottom, a war of institutions: the Parliament against the crown.
The experience of England was fresh in the mind of the American founders when they issued the Declaration of Independence, for in many ways the Americans believed they were replicating the Glorious Revolution of 1688:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for, opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . .

That American statesmen learned well from the experience of England can also be seen in the state constitutions that were drafted between the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Convention. Under nine of the state constitutions adopted during that period, the governor had no power to “prorogue, dissolve, or adjourn” the legislature.
With the Framers’ knowledge of English history, their experience with King George III, and the practice of the states, it is no surprise that the decision to give the executive of the United States little authority over when and where Congress should meet appeared to pass the Convention with no debate, following the proposal first made in the Committee of Detail. The Constitution insists that Congress’s right to convene must be independent of the will of the executive. Article I, Section 4, Clause 2. “Each house,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1790, had a “natural right to meet when and where it should think best.”
Nonetheless, the Framers also understood that the government must be able to meet exigent circumstances and therefore gave the president the very limited power to convene Congress “on extraordinary occasions.” Justice Joseph Story indicated in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) that the president’s need to conduct foreign relations effectively would be the primary motive for convening Congress. He gave as examples the need “to repel foreign aggressions, depredations, and direct hostilities; to provide adequate means to mitigate, or overcome unexpected calamities; to suppress insurrections; and to provide for innumerable other important exigencies, arising out of the intercourse and revolutions among nations.”
Beginning with John Adams in 1797, the president has convened both the House and the Senate twenty-seven times, normally for crises such as war, economic emergency, or critical legislation. In addition, the president has called the Senate to meet to confirm nominations. With the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment, which brought forward the date on which Congress convenes, and with the practice of Congress to remain in session twelve months out of the year, there is practically no need for the president to call extraordinary sessions anymore. President Harry S. Truman called the last special session on July 26, 1948.
Of course, even more important to the Framers was limiting the power of the executive to dissolve the legislature. They understood from English history that such power was among the quickest routes to tyranny. Under the Constitution, therefore, as Alexander Hamilton explained, “[t]he President can only adjourn the national Legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.” The Federalist No. 69. It is only an administrative power, one that the president has never had to exercise.

Yet, it is Constitutional.

No. Not unless the Scroutus changes its holding from when Obama was potus. See above. Congress is in session when it says it's in session. But if either the House or Senate disagrees with the other body about being in session, then Trump or another potus can adjourn the one not in session.

One more time Art 2 Sec 3

but it's all a Trumpian charade to hide numbers of dead from you

Oh my god. Yeah, Trump is the one fudging numbers of deaths. You creatures are deranged.