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

[JimBowie1958]

The best thing that can happen to Americans is for Congress to do nothing forever. Shut that bitch down and never open it again.

No mans property, freedom or life is safe while congress is in session.

 

[justinacolmena]

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

God I love this guy!

That's the problem with Democrats. They're slaves. Or slavers. It doesn't really matter if they are bosses or subordinates.

They have to be FORCED to do the job right if you want to allow them to work for you, which means they must be PUNISHED for doing the job wrong, and constantly watched while they are on the job, and carefully audited to make sure they clock out are not pulling unauthorized overtime.

The guys who were interested in doing the job right, (or getting any work done at all,) of course, are out of work, since they were fired long ago for being a poor fit for the team, not a team player, socially awkward, sexual harassment, racial insult etc., etc.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where is that authority granted to the President? They are pro forma due to the social distancing recommended during a national emergency.

OL, they do that all the time as a courtesy to the opposite party to be sure to give them time to consider a nominee. That is which Mich McTurtle is doing this, out of courtesy to Schumer.

They would do this with or without COVID19.

 

[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.

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.

But he CAN exercise it in times where the Congress is abusing its power to technically remain in session and prevent appointments by the President while Congress is in recesss.

Trump should do this to force Congress to grow the hell up and do their damned jobs.

Look at it this way.

If Congress is in session and not handling his appointments, he can sit on every bill they push until all appointments are made.

The result of a standoff?

The best thing that can happen to Americans is for Congress to do nothing forever. Shut that bitch down and never open it again.

Its not as if the Senate is actually passing bills anyway....other than pandemic relief.

Would I like to see Trump tell the American people he won't sign pandemic relief bills because the mean Senate won't confirm his nominees?

Absolutely.

 

[Jitss617]

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.

But he CAN exercise it in times where the Congress is abusing its power to technically remain in session and prevent appointments by the President while Congress is in recesss.

Trump should do this to force Congress to grow the hell up and do their damned jobs.

Look at it this way.

If Congress is in session and not handling his appointments, he can sit on every bill they push until all appointments are made.

The result of a standoff?

The best thing that can happen to Americans is for Congress to do nothing forever. Shut that bitch down and never open it again.

Its not as if the Senate is actually passing bills anyway....other than pandemic relief.

Would I like to see Trump tell the American people he won't sign pandemic relief bills because the mean Senate won't confirm his nominees?

Absolutely.

Why are you so anti-trump why don’t you agree with them they should come back and start passing laws and passing appointees?

 

[Syriusly]

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

God I love this guy!

That's the problem with Democrats. They're slaves. Or slavers. It doesn't really matter if they are bosses or subordinates.

They have to be FORCED to do the job right if you want to allow them to work for you, which means they must be PUNISHED for doing the job wrong, and constantly watched while they are on the job, and carefully audited to make sure they clock out are not pulling unauthorized overtime.

The guys who were interested in doing the job right, (or getting any work done at all,) of course, are out of work, since they were fired long ago for being a poor fit for the team, not a team player, socially awkward, sexual harassment, racial insult etc., etc.

I love this post.

When the Republican Senate refused to even discuss Obama nominees you Republicans applauded them- and insisted that the Senate doesn't have any obligation to consider a President's nominees.

Now your Dear Leader can't get a few of his nominees passed through the Republican controlled Senate..... you are lecturing us about how the Democrats need to be forced to do their job.

The ignorance and blatant partisan idiocy of you Trumpkins is just amazing.

 

[Jitss617]

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

God I love this guy!

That's the problem with Democrats. They're slaves. Or slavers. It doesn't really matter if they are bosses or subordinates.

They have to be FORCED to do the job right if you want to allow them to work for you, which means they must be PUNISHED for doing the job wrong, and constantly watched while they are on the job, and carefully audited to make sure they clock out are not pulling unauthorized overtime.

The guys who were interested in doing the job right, (or getting any work done at all,) of course, are out of work, since they were fired long ago for being a poor fit for the team, not a team player, socially awkward, sexual harassment, racial insult etc., etc.

I love this post.

When the Republican Senate refused to even discuss Obama nominees you Republicans applauded them- and insisted that the Senate doesn't have any obligation to consider a President's nominees.

Now your Dear Leader can't get a few of his nominees passed through the Republican controlled Senate..... you are lecturing us about how the Democrats need to be forced to do their job.

The ignorance and blatant partisan idiocy of you Trumpkins is just amazing.

It was discussed and he was rejected

 

[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.

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.

But he CAN exercise it in times where the Congress is abusing its power to technically remain in session and prevent appointments by the President while Congress is in recesss.

Trump should do this to force Congress to grow the hell up and do their damned jobs.

Look at it this way.

If Congress is in session and not handling his appointments, he can sit on every bill they push until all appointments are made.

The result of a standoff?

The best thing that can happen to Americans is for Congress to do nothing forever. Shut that bitch down and never open it again.

Its not as if the Senate is actually passing bills anyway....other than pandemic relief.

Would I like to see Trump tell the American people he won't sign pandemic relief bills because the mean Senate won't confirm his nominees?

Absolutely.

Why are you so anti-trump why don’t you agree with them they should come back and start passing laws and passing appointees?

I don't have time to list all of the very many reasons why I am anti-trump. In summary I am anti-trump because he is a lying, ball-less, ineffectual leader who blames everyone else for his actions and inactions- and he is con-man.

Here is the thing- regarding passing laws- the House passed over 100 bills that the Senate refused to even consider- and you had no problem with that then. If there is a law that both sides agree needs to be passed- like pandemic relief- they will come back and pass the bill.

As far as voting on Trump's nominees- well I am no hypocrite on this. I said when the Senate refused to consider Garland's nomination that I believe that the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to vote on a President's nominees. At that time the Right absolutely supported the Senate refusing to vote on Obama's nominee.

It is interesting now that Trump can't get a few of his nominees through the Republican controlled Senate. I mean how bad of a leader must he be to be able to get his pet Senate Leader to bring his nominees even up for a vote?

That said- I think that the Senate should have a vote for Trump's nominees- just like the Senate should have voted on Garland.

What about you Jitsy- were you pissed off when the Senate wouldn't do its duty and vote on Obama's nominees?

 

[Syriusly]

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

God I love this guy!

That's the problem with Democrats. They're slaves. Or slavers. It doesn't really matter if they are bosses or subordinates.

They have to be FORCED to do the job right if you want to allow them to work for you, which means they must be PUNISHED for doing the job wrong, and constantly watched while they are on the job, and carefully audited to make sure they clock out are not pulling unauthorized overtime.

The guys who were interested in doing the job right, (or getting any work done at all,) of course, are out of work, since they were fired long ago for being a poor fit for the team, not a team player, socially awkward, sexual harassment, racial insult etc., etc.

I love this post.

When the Republican Senate refused to even discuss Obama nominees you Republicans applauded them- and insisted that the Senate doesn't have any obligation to consider a President's nominees.

Now your Dear Leader can't get a few of his nominees passed through the Republican controlled Senate..... you are lecturing us about how the Democrats need to be forced to do their job.

The ignorance and blatant partisan idiocy of you Trumpkins is just amazing.

It was discussed and he was rejected

Okay my last reply to Jitler- because I feel like I am taking a bat to a Down's Syndrome kid.

No- Mitch McConnell prevented any discussion or vote on Garland in the Senate.

The Senate never rejected him- they refused to vote- just like they are doing right now for Trump's nominees.

But thanks again for displaying both your abject partisanship and vast ignorance.

 

[Jitss617]

100 bills that the Senate refused to even consider- and you had no problem with that then. If there is a law that both sides agree needs to be passed- like pandemic relief- they will come back and pass the bill.

You know none of them billls had a chance to pass, the were meant to grandstand .. go away you fraud. Try to have a serious conversation and you bring up the ridiculous bills democrats used to grandstand? Grow up. This is why you Democrats won’t win elections

 

[Jitss617]

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

God I love this guy!

That's the problem with Democrats. They're slaves. Or slavers. It doesn't really matter if they are bosses or subordinates.

They have to be FORCED to do the job right if you want to allow them to work for you, which means they must be PUNISHED for doing the job wrong, and constantly watched while they are on the job, and carefully audited to make sure they clock out are not pulling unauthorized overtime.

The guys who were interested in doing the job right, (or getting any work done at all,) of course, are out of work, since they were fired long ago for being a poor fit for the team, not a team player, socially awkward, sexual harassment, racial insult etc., etc.

I love this post.

When the Republican Senate refused to even discuss Obama nominees you Republicans applauded them- and insisted that the Senate doesn't have any obligation to consider a President's nominees.

Now your Dear Leader can't get a few of his nominees passed through the Republican controlled Senate..... you are lecturing us about how the Democrats need to be forced to do their job.

The ignorance and blatant partisan idiocy of you Trumpkins is just amazing.

It was discussed and he was rejected

Okay my last reply to Jitler- because I feel like I am taking a bat to a Down's Syndrome kid.

No- Mitch McConnell prevented any discussion or vote on Garland in the Senate.

The Senate never rejected him- they refused to vote- just like they are doing right now for Trump's nominees.

But thanks again for displaying both your abject partisanship and vast ignorance.

We do don’t bore for Garland because it was the SC, and in a voting year. Trumps appointees most are cabinet positions. You democrats have an iq the size of a earth works penis

 

[OldLady]

Where is that authority granted to the President? They are pro forma due to the social distancing recommended during a national emergency.

OL, they do that all the time as a courtesy to the opposite party to be sure to give them time to consider a nominee. That is which Mich McTurtle is doing this, out of courtesy to Schumer.

They would do this with or without COVID19.

I'm not following that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

earthwork
noun


Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In





earth·work | \ ˈərth-ˌwərk

\

Definition of earthwork


1 : an embankment or other construction made of earth especially : one used as a field fortification

2 : the operations connected with excavations and embankments of earth

3 : a work of art consisting of a portion of land modified by an artist