The Democrats’ Threat To ‘Go Nuclear’

Progressives plot to dramatically shift constitutional powers to Obama

By Arnold Ahlert (Bio and Archives)  Friday, July 12, 2013 

Canada Free Press

Yesterday, in an angry speech given on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) warned he would go “nuclear” and change the Senate rules in order to end filibusters on President Obama’s executive branch nominations. “Senator [Mitch] McConnell broke his word,” Reid fumed.

Invoking the nuclear option would be a two-step process. First, Reid would push through the rule change itself with a simple majority, instead of the 67 votes it currently requires. After that, ending a filibuster would only take a 51-vote majority, rather than the current 60-vote threshold. During his speech, Reid cited Republican efforts to delay the nominations of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and CIA Director John Brennan. Republicans have promise to filibuster Richard Cordray, along with other nominees for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), unless Democrats are willing to limit the power of that agency. “It is a disturbing trend when Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even if they have no objection about the qualification of the nominee,” Reid said. “They’re blocking qualified nominees because they refuse to accept the law of the land.”“The Republican leader has failed to live up to his commitments. He’s failed to do what he said he would do—move nominations by regular order except in extraordinary circumstances. I refuse to unilaterally surrender my right to respond to this breach of faith.” Reid can sanctimoniously frame this effort any way he wants, but his real agenda is to dramatically shift power to the executive office, a move that President Obama is anxious to exploit to impose his radical policies through bureaucratic means.

The law of the land is a slippery term when it comes to Democrats in general and this administration in particular. In January 2012, President Obama attempted to implement an unprecedented use of recess appointment powers to install people at the CFPB and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), despite the reality that the Senate was not in recess at the time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the president, calling the move unconstitutional. On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which will determine the scope of executive recess appointment power. If the Court rules in favor of the president, it would essentially eviscerate the Senate’s role in vetting presidential nominees.

Read More Here

Reposted with permission.
.