Identifying the Political or Social Orientation of a Viewpoint - Research Paper Example

March 29, Political/Social Viewpoint Pro Argument: Structure Premise Sine the United s Constitution’s Article II grants United States President the power to appoint individuals without Senate confirmation during Senate Recesses, President Obama appointed three individuals to the Nat. Lab. Relations_Board during Christmas Break. Premise 2: The Senate was on Christmas recess. Conclusion: President Obama can legally appoint three individuals to the Nat. Lab. Relations_Board during the Senate’s Christmas recess (Rainbolt, 2014). Discussion: To best of President Obama’s legal knowledge, President Obama insisted he had the constitutional authority to appoint three individuals to the National_Labor Relations_Board during the Senate Christmas’ January, 2013 time period(Moran, 2013). The Obama labor department appointees included the appointments of Mr. Griffin as well as Mr. Block. President Obama based his recess appointments on or pro United States Constitution. The same constitution’s article II provision states the United States President has the constitutional power to appoint individuals to fill vacancies during the Senate’s recess. In fact, the same article affirms former United States President G. W. Bush appointed 171 individuals when the Senate was in recess to fill up the prevailing vacancies. In the same manner, former United States President B. Clinton appointed 139 individuals during the Senate’s recess to fill up current vacancies. The same article shows former United States President A. Johnson had appointed 14 individuals under the classification of recess appointments during his term. Under the bandwagon logic, if the prior presidents were legally allowed to appoint individuals during the Senate Recess. The recess appointments avoided the confirmation or disapproval of our assigned United States Senators during the grueling and tension-filled appointment scrutiny meetings (Rainbolt, 2014). Strengths The pro argument has its own set of strengths. First, the first premise is true. Our United States Constitution allows the President to appoint his preferred individuals to work in government departments. Second, the second premise affirms that United States President, to the best of his knowledge, felt he did not violate any law. The president innocently felt that the appointments of the three individuals correctly done because the senators were in recess, Christmas recess (Hughes, 2004). Weaknesses The pro argument has its weaknesses. First, the first premise is grounded on the general rule. The general statement dictates that the United States president can appoint individuals during the Senate recess. However, there is an exception. The Federal Court affirmed that recess appointments are allowed only during the formal or official senate recesses. The Federal court opined that the Christmas recess does not fall under the formal and official senate recess classification. Consequently, the court opined that Obama’s interpretation of the senate recess provision of our United States Constitution is false. Second, the next premise is false. Christmas recess does not qualify as official or formal recess. Consequently, the conclusion is invalid since the premises qualify as false or invalid (Hughes, 2004). Con Argument Structure Premise 1: Since the United States Constitution’s Article II grants United States President the power to appoint individuals without Senate confirmation during official or formal Senate Recesses, President Obama cannot appointed the three individuals to the Nat. Lab. Relations_Board during Christmas Break. Premise 2: Recess appointments are valid only on official or formal Senate Recesses. Conclusion: President Obama cannot legally appoint the three individuals to the Nat. Lab. Relations_Board during the Senate’s Christmas recess, January 2013, without seeking Senate Approval or confirmation (Rainbolt, 2014). Strengths The con argument has its set of strengths. First, the first premise is grounded on the United States Constitution’s affirming that the President can only appoint individuals during official or formal Senate recesses or breaks. The Christmas vacation is not a formal or official recess. Consequently, President Obama violated the United States Constitution’s provision on the hiring of appointees during Senate recesses. Second, the second premises confirmed that the Christmas recess is not one of the official and formal Senate recesses. The Federal Court clarified the issue stating appointments cannot be done during Christmas recesses. President Obama had appointed an estimated 32 individuals to posts that require the United States Senate’s confirmation or approval. One of President Obama’s questionable senate recess appointees was Mr. R. Cordray. President Obama appointed Mr. R. Codray as the director of the prestigious government agency, Consumer_Financial Protection_Bureau (Savage, 2013). Lastly, the court had given its decision by stating President Obama’s Christmas vacation was invalid. Until the Federal Court’s decision is revered by the Supreme Court, the Federal Court’s decision should be implemented. Weaknesses The con argument has its weaknesses. First, the first premise is grounded on court interpretation of the United States Constitution. The same Court’s opinion can be reversed when President Obama will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The United States constitution does not specifically state that Christmas vacation does not fall under official or formal senate recess. In fact, our United States Constitution does not even mention any thing about any formal or official senate recess (Hughes, 2004). Court intervention The United States Federal_Appeals. Washington D.C., Court observed that President Obama appointed three individuals to the labor relations agency during the Senate’s Christmas Break, January 2013. The United States Constitution normally requires all presidential appointments must seek the approval of the senate appointments committee. President Obama refused to follow the required senate process on the ground the Senate appointments committee was on recess. President used the term recess_appointment to legally permit the President from seeking the senate approval of the three chosen President Obama appointees (Hughes, 2004). To resolve the issue, the United States Washington D.C. Federal_Appeals Court affirmed President’s three appointments violated the related United States Constitution. The court judges opined do that the recess appointments do not include senate recesses during certain times of the year. Such recesses that do not qualify as recesses allowing for presidential appointments include Christmas vacation recesses, summer break recesses, as well as spring break recesses. The court opined that President Obama can appoint individuals during senate recesses only if the recesses are classified as official recesses as well as formal recesses. The official or formal recesses include recesses between congressional sessions. Since the January 2013 Obama appointments did not occur during formal or official senate recesses, the court emphasized Obama’s three appoints are illegal. Thus, President Obama must immediately seek the Senate Approval of the same three appointments. In turn, the same committee may approve or disapprove Obama’s three appointments. President Obama can still appeal the unfavorable Federal Court decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may reverse or affirm the Federal Court’s decision (Hughes, 2004). Comparison Structure A. Pro Argument. The pro argument is grounded on an invalid premise. The pro argument premise statement, The Senate was on Christmas recess, is invalid. The Federal_Appeals Court opined that the Senate recesses allowed by our United States constitution do not include Christmas breaks. Since the same premise is invalid, then the conclusion is automatically invalid. To be valid, the conclusion must be based on all prior valid premises. If one of the premises is invalid, then the conclusion that is based on at least one invalid premise will automatically be invalid (Savage, 2013). Further, the Federal_Appeals Court decision affirms the three Obama appointments during Christmas break violated a provision of our United States constitution. Our United States courts’ roles include interpreting the essence of the complicated and often confusing law provisions to the unschooled lay persons. In the current Obama appointments case, the court has spoken out. President Obama must obey the provisions of our United States Constitution. The Supreme Court is expected to give its own ruling on the same Senate recess appointments. Consequently, there is big probability that the Supreme Court may uphold the Federal Court’s decision. On the other hand, the same Supreme Court may reverse the Federal Court’s decision on the same case (Savage, 2013). B. Con Argument. The Con argument is grounded on valid premises. The con argument premise statement, Recess appointments are valid only on official or formal Senate Recesses, is valid. The Federal_Appeals Court opined that the Senate recesses accepted by our United States constitution shall only include recesses classified as formal or official ones. Since the same premise is valid, then the conclusion is automatically valid. To be valid, the conclusion must be grounded on all prior valid premises. Since there was no invalid premise cropping up during the argument, , then the con argument’s conclusion will automatically be valid. During the break, our United States Federal_Appeals Court decision affirms the three Obama appointments during Christmas break violated a provision of our United States constitution. The same court correctly did its legal role to interpret the law. The same Federal Court’s interpreting the essence of the same complicated and often confusing recess appointments law provisions clarified the issue to the unschooled lay persons. Consequently, President Obama must obey decision of the Federal court. President Obama should immediately seek the Senate Appointments Committee’s confirmation of President Obama chosen three labor department appointees. Conclusion Based on the discussions, the con argument is the better argument. The pro argument’s containing one invalid premise automatically leads to an invalid argument conclusion. On the other hand, the Con argument’s containing not containing any invalid premise automatically leads to a valid argument conclusion. To be a valid conclusion, all prior premises statements must not contain any invalid premise. References: Hughes, W. (2004). Critical Thinking. Toronto: Broadview Press. Moran, T. (2013, January 25). Obamas Abuse of Power Argument on Recess Appointments. ABC News . Rainbolt, G. (2014). Critical Thinking: The Art of Argument. New York: Cengage Learning Press. Savage, C. (2013, January 25). Court Rejects Obama Move to Fill Posts. New York Times , p. 1. Read More