3
   

Obama's Appointments Are Unconstitutional

 
 
H2O MAN
 
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 10:26 am


Obama Labor Board Recess Appointments Are Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 12:09 pm
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002680911/320605902_obamafrown_xlarge.jpeg
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 01:19 pm


Court: Obama's Bypass of Congress
To Fill Labor Jobs 'Unconstitutional'
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 02:19 pm


U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit calls President Obama's move to bypass Senate
to fill job posts on labor panel unconstitutional — administration promises appeal.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 03:32 pm


A federal court decision that Obama's move to bypass the Senate to fill job posts on the NLRB
was unconstitutional could shut down the board and calls into question other appointments.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 03:41 pm
@H2O MAN,
That's an interesting argument because it allows all decisions made by any recess appointment in the last 200 years to be questioned.

I guess we get to revoke all of John Bolton's votes in the UN.

Quote:
After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 03:43 pm
@parados,
No, it's just focused on what unconstitutional moves Obama has made.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 03:44 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

No, it's just focused on what unconstitutional moves Obama has made.

If it's unconstitutional for Obama then it is for every President.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 03:46 pm
@parados,
No, just Obama only because he believes he is sort of a God.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 04:03 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/obama-labor-board_n_2550788.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Quote:

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session – and not in recess – at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.


In Obama's case, the Senate was still in session. That is the critical distinction.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 05:24 pm
@roger,
I wish I could have just a couple of coworkers show up, open the door for less than a minute then go home and we all get paid for a days work even those of us that didn't show up at all.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 11:31 pm
Parados nailed it. The "sessions" were about a minute long. They didn't introduce any legislation. They didn't debate or discuss any legislation. They didn't vote on anything except to adjourn. The Times rightly calls it Republican chicanery. The right and the fat cats were miffed because, after eight years of right wing appointees, the supposedly even-handed NLRB consistently favored business special interests over working Americans. Obama had made appointees to repair some of the ideological imbalance, and Republicans couldn't stand that the other side get a fair shake, so they used the sham "sessions" to maintain the Senate was still in session. The administration, correctly, maintained it was a sham and the Senate was in fact recessed. The all-Republican-named justices denied them. Justice isn't blind, it isn't even near-sighted. It's out and out politically biased.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 11:34 pm
Republican chicanery. NYT:
Quote:

Editorial
A Court Upholds Republican Chicanery
Published: January 25, 2013
For most of President Obama’s first term, Republicans used legislative trickery to try to prevent the functioning of two federal agencies they hate, the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. First they would filibuster the president’s nominees to the agencies, knowing that neither agency could operate without board members or a director. Then they would create fake legislative sessions for the Senate during its recess, intended solely to prevent Mr. Obama from making recess appointments as an end run.

Astonishingly, a federal appeals court upheld this strategy on Friday. Mr. Obama had declared that Congress was not really open for business during its one-minute, lights-on-lights-off sessions intended only to thwart him, and he made recess appointments. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said his N.L.R.B. appointments were unconstitutional, buying the argument of Republicans that the Senate was really in session.

The court even broke with the presidential practice of 150 years by ruling that only vacancies arising during a narrow recess period qualify for recess appointments.

White House officials said the administration would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but if it is upheld, it will invalidate scores of decisions made by the labor board over the last year. Without lawfully appointed members, the board would lack a quorum and could take no action, unable to police union elections or ensure that companies treat unions properly. That is exactly the outcome hoped for by business interests and the right, furious that a board under Democratic control tends to rule in labor’s favor (after years of ruling for business during the Bush years).

The decision also threatens the work of the consumer bureau, which has been operating under a director, Richard Cordray, appointed during a recess after Republicans filibustered his nomination. A similar lawsuit is moving through the courts challenging his appointment.

The administration’s lawyers made a solid argument that a legislative session during which no business takes place, and when no nominations can be considered, is not a real session. The vast majority of senators, in fact, were out of town. Used in this way, the administration said, sham “pro forma” sessions prevented two executive-branch agencies from performing their lawful duties. Both agencies were created by majorities in Congress, but they were undermined by minorities.

The court’s opinion took no notice of the underhanded nature of these actions: Senate Republicans asked the House to remain in session solely to prevent Mr. Obama’s recess appointments, and the Constitution prevents the Senate from adjourning without the consent of the House, even if it meets only for a minute every three days. Using a cramped definition of “recess,” the panel’s Republican-appointed judges allowed a minority to abuse the recess-appointments clause of the Constitution for political ends.

The situation demonstrates how dysfunctional Washington has become because of these Republican abuses. Although Democrats also used pro forma sessions for this purpose under President George W. Bush, Republicans have blocked Mr. Obama’s appointments at a far higher rate, and they have gone much further by trying to shut down executive agencies through use of the filibuster.

Democrats could have changed this by agreeing to curb filibuster abuses this week, particularly on high-level presidential appointments, but they squandered the opportunity. The court’s decision demonstrates how their timidity is being used against them. With no sign that Republicans are willing to let up on their machinations, Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive power to keep federal agencies operating.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2013 11:07 pm
The lack of engagement on this topic by the majority of left-leaning A2K members is interesting.

This is a significant setback for the president, and doesn't bode well for the ultimate decision which will, ineviaby, be rendered by the Supreme Court.

Every time a lower court ruled in favor of Obamacare the liberal A2K members celebrated, but here the silence is deafening.

He played too cute and he is being smacked back.

What is truly cheerful is that should this decision hold up, every action by this board will be voided.

As the character in The Simpsons says: "Ha Haaa!"


0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2013 11:46 pm
Before you gloat too much, Finn, note that this was not in any way a decision that said that any of the decisions made by the board were in any way unconstitutional. The court, in a blatantly political decision, said that the APPOINTMENT of the board members was not made constitutionally, not whether any of their actions were, which is an entirely different matter. The question with the ACA dealt with whether the act itself was constitutional, which is is. Not that that has deterred House Republicans from wasting time and taxpayers' money, when they should be dealing with the nation's problems, by voting, 34 times now, to repeal Obamacare, when they know there isn't a hope in hell it will be, no matter how often they vote.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2013 11:49 pm
@MontereyJack,
If the ppointments to the board were invalid, then every action taken by the board was invalid, whethere or not those actions were constitutional.

You don't understand the issue.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 12:00 am
I do understand the issue. You don't. Voiding an action is totally different from declaring the action unconstitutional, which the court did not do. It just means it has to be made again. And this once again points up Republican obduracy and why they so richly deserve to be called the Party of No.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 12:16 am
@MontereyJack,
Obviously you don't.

If the board was invalid, all their action were invalid.

If the appointments were unconstitutional that it doesn't matter whether or not the actions of the board were constitutional.

As for what this points out about the GOP...blah, blah, blah.

Get educated or shut the **** up.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 12:42 am
Shut the **** up yourself. You're the one that introduced Obamacare into the discussion. That decision dealt with a completely different question of constitutionality than this one did. This one points once again to Republican chicanery, as the Times so aptly calls it, and republican tightness with the fat cats, which means it if gets more publicity, it's likely to work in Obama's favor, just like Romney's "47 percent" did.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 02:19 am
@MontereyJack,
You've no idea of the topic or what your are spouting about.

Fool.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama's Appointments Are Unconstitutional
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/16/2019 at 03:04:07