T Nation

NLRB Appts Ruled Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON â?? In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court panel ruled that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that would effectively curtail a presidentâ??s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal-appeals-court-rules-obama-recess-appointments-to-labor-board-are-unconstitutional/2013/01/25/0df0fa14-6707-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
WASHINGTON â?? In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court panel ruled that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that would effectively curtail a presidentâ??s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/federal-appeals-court-rules-obama-recess-appointments-to-labor-board-are-unconstitutional/2013/01/25/0df0fa14-6707-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

[/quote]

This is a huge hit to Unions…as the new labor board was extremely pro-union.

Kinda nice to see the chosen one get a dose of reality.

Kinda nice that the Appeals Court actually read the Constitution and ruled appropriately.

I got 20 bucks that says he finds a way around it. With help.

“Presidents from both parties have made hundreds of recess appointments when the Senate has failed to act on nominations. Ronald Reagan holds the record with 243.”

Fascinating…

Even more fascinating are the 3 case studies determining the President is well within his power to make appointments while the Senate is in recess (because they aren’t insane fucking crybabies using a here-to unfounded definition of THE Recess to make their case):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14575856744547292492&q=387+f3d+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286230916747373696&q=387+f3d+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7897850895152526799&q=387+f3d+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

not that I would expect a majority of people in PWI to bother to read (much less understand) them…its much easier to just hope that something will happen to put that big bad muslim socialist back in his place, right?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Kinda nice that the Appeals Court actually read the Constitution and ruled appropriately.[/quote]

[quote]
Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution wrote:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.[/quote]

Yeah buddy…they sure nailed that one!

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Kinda nice that the Appeals Court actually read the Constitution and ruled appropriately.[/quote]

[quote]
Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution wrote:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.[/quote]

Yeah buddy…they sure nailed that one![/quote]

Um, did you actually read what you just posted?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
“Presidents from both parties have made hundreds of recess appointments when the Senate has failed to act on nominations. Ronald Reagan holds the record with 243.”

Fascinating…[/quote]

‘The judges observed that no president from George Washington through Abraham Lincoln ever attempted to make an “intrasession” appointment (that is, an appointment when Congress was in session) without the advice and consent of the Senate, as Obama attempted to do. From the end of the Civil War through the end of World War II, only three such appointments were attempted. In the judges’ words, “[I]t is well established that 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution, no President [had] attempted such an appointment, and for decades thereafter, such appointments were exceedingly rare.”

“Consistent with the structure of the Appointments Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause exception to it, the filling up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done during the same recess in which the vacancy arose.” They explained: “There is no reason the Framers would have permitted the President to wait until some future intersession recess.” (Two of the vacancies in question under Obama occurred almost a year and a half before he sought to circumvent the Senate to fill them.)’ - The Weekly Standard

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Even more fascinating are the 3 case studies determining the President is well within his power to make appointments while the Senate is in recess (because they aren’t insane fucking crybabies using a here-to unfounded definition of THE Recess to make their case):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14575856744547292492&q=387+f3d+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13286230916747373696&q=387+f3d+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7897850895152526799&q=387+f3d+1220&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9

not that I would expect a majority of people in PWI to bother to read (much less understand) them…its much easier to just hope that something will happen to put that big bad muslim socialist back in his place, right?[/quote]

They weren’t really in recess. Congress was still in session as far as it’s always been defined. And the practice of keeping congress “in session” for a minute a day to prevent recess appointments was started by the Dems in 07 to prevent Bush appointments.

They basically ruled that the president doesn’t have the power to decide when congress is in recess.

This situation is very different than any previous actual recess appointment.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

not that I would expect a majority of people in PWI to bother to read (much less understand) them…its much easier to just hope that something will happen to put that big bad muslim socialist back in his place, right?[/quote]

The Senate wasn’t in recess. Thanks anyway.

NRLB is going to openly ignore the ruling anyway so, this is just a moral victory for the right, and an annoying “bump in the road” that will go without mention in the MSM for the left.

http://www.nlrb.gov/news/statement-chairman-pearce-recess-appointment-ruling

Also, smells like OFA in this thread

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
NRLB is going to openly ignore the ruling anyway so, this is just a moral victory for the right, and an annoying “bump in the road” that will go without mention in the MSM for the left.

http://www.nlrb.gov/news/statement-chairman-pearce-recess-appointment-ruling

[/quote]

We can only hope!

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Kinda nice that the Appeals Court actually read the Constitution and ruled appropriately.[/quote]

[quote]
Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution wrote:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.[/quote]

Yeah buddy…they sure nailed that one![/quote]

Um, did you actually read what you just posted?[/quote]

LOL…of course I did. But I forgot I am dealing with fucking nutjobs here. So please explain to me what exactly it was that I missed?

I know words and quotes are confusing for you, so let me break it down to more easy to understand terms:

-The Constitution gives the President the power to fill vacancies
-The President filled a vacancy

It is the terms of “recess” that are in question here, and there are 3 case studies that side against the current court’s interpretation. Enjoy your moral victory while it lasts, it’s coming back.

Scoreboard.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

not that I would expect a majority of people in PWI to bother to read (much less understand) them…its much easier to just hope that something will happen to put that big bad muslim socialist back in his place, right?[/quote]

The Senate wasn’t in recess. Thanks anyway.[/quote]

There are 3 case studies that disagree with you. THANKS ANYWAY.

(and boy was I right or what when I said nobody would bother to read them LOL)

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

‘The judges observed that no president from George Washington through Abraham Lincoln ever attempted to make an “intrasession” appointment (that is, an appointment when Congress was in session) without the advice and consent of the Senate, as Obama attempted to do. From the end of the Civil War through the end of World War II, only three such appointments were attempted. In the judges’ words, “[I]t is well established that 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution, no President [had] attempted such an appointment, and for decades thereafter, such appointments were exceedingly rare.”[/quote]

Good post and now we could get into real debate if people actually cared to do so here. Why was it so unnecessarily common to do so? Maybe because then the minority would behave like grown ass politicians instead of filibuster loving children? Does it make sense that when minority is pissing all over the political process because they can’t have their way, the President utilizes powers granted to him by the constitution to move on with politics?

[quote]
“Consistent with the structure of the Appointments Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause exception to it, the filling up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done during the same recess in which the vacancy arose.” [/quote]

This is a newspaper’s opinion, not fact, and does not have any case studies to back it up.

[quote]

They explained: “There is no reason the Framers would have permitted the President to wait until some future intersession recess.” (Two of the vacancies in question under Obama occurred almost a year and a half before he sought to circumvent the Senate to fill them.)’ - The Weekly Standard[/quote]

Funny how when this is translated to assault weapons, you guys are the first to defend it with some bullshit of a “the founders wrote what they meant” type of argument.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Funny how when this is translated to assault weapons, you guys are the first to defend it with some bullshit of a “the founders wrote what they meant” type of argument.
[/quote]

Well, seeing as the “assult weapon” view point would be giving power to the people, and the “president is all powerful” view point would be giving power to monarch type figure… Stands to reason it isn’t “funny” at all, but more likely than not accurate.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Funny how when this is translated to assault weapons, you guys are the first to defend it with some bullshit of a “the founders wrote what they meant” type of argument.
[/quote]

Well, seeing as the “assult weapon” view point would be giving power to the people, and the “president is all powerful” view point would be giving power to monarch type figure… Stands to reason it isn’t “funny” at all, but more likely than not accurate. [/quote]

Bullshit. There were federalists and there were anti-federalists in the framer’s delegations. I know you have convinced yourself that the US has moved so far to the left we are about to fall off the edge, but the reality is that there were people that were harping for big government then just like there are now.