Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by buster2010
Apparently the Court decided that Congress was not in an official recess(if you bothered to read the article) and because of that it invalidated Obama's need to make the appointments, and invalidated the appointments, as well as decisions made by the labor board after the appointments.
Correct, they were in "pro forma" session. They meet but cannot conduct official business. It was a tit-for-tat game between the House and Senate during that period but ultimately the call falls on Senator Reid for putting the Senate into "pro forma".
President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
For a second, I was hopeful that this was about actually about addressing how the Government has been abusing the Constitution - - usually in regards to allowing Corporations to usurp the rights of the people. Alas, no.
It's 2013 -- why is Obama not able to finish appointing people to the government panels?
He's doing an end-run around the PROCESS -- but there is nothing in the Constitution that says; "A President may appoint officers" -- he's trying to do an end-run around Republicans who refuse to accept that he's the President now, for the 2nd time.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Originally posted by buster2010
Love how people want to support crushing the middle class.edit on 25-1-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Originally posted by rtaylortitle
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
There is nothing, per se, wrong with a democracy as long as it contains a Bill of Rights. Just saying we are a Republic has NOT stopped any of the egregious actions in bypassing the Constitution and/or obliterating same.
Q On another topic -- will the administration appeal the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the recess appointments to the NLRB?
MR. CARNEY: Let me say, first, that with regards to next steps, I would refer you to the Justice Department. But the decision is novel and unprecedented. It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations, so we respectfully but strongly disagree with the rulings. There have been, according to the Congressional Research Service, something like 280-plus intrasession recess appointments by, again, Democratic and Republican administrations, dating back to 1867. That’s a long time and quite a significant precedent. So next steps, I’d refer you to the Justice Department, but our view is that we disagree strongly with the decision.
Reuters. Q Jay, following up on that question, what -- without going through next steps if you don’t want to talk about that -- what does this mean for you guys? What does it mean for the NLRB appointments? And what does it mean for other recess appointments like Richard Cordray?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the case that was -- the decision that was put forward today had to do with one case, one company, one court. It does not have any impact, as I think the NLRB has already put out, on their operations or functions, or on the board itself. It has no bearing on Richard Cordray. And we, as I said, strongly disagree with it.
Q So you don’t think that this will invalidate the decisions that the board has made?
MR. CARNEY: Again, if you look at the case, the court decided a case brought by a specific company, and the decision applies to that case, it does not apply more broadly than that.
Q And you’re not concerned that it may call in question Cordray or his decisions, or anything out of that board?
MR. CARNEY: Again, it simply doesn’t as a legal matter. I’m not going to predict what happens in the future, but in terms of this case, it does not bear on Mr. Cordray.
This is a very important and very broad holding–indeed, much broader than when it appeared that this case would be resolved on the President’s ability to make recess appointments when the Senate was conducting “pro forma” sessions. The main thrust of the court’s opinion is that the recess appointment power extends only to intersession recesses–recesses between sessions of Congress–and not to intrasession recesses. Intrasession recess appointments have been made fairly commonly since WWII, and have been particularly common since the Reagan Administration. UN Ambassador John Bolton and Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. are two of the more high-profile intrasession recess appointments in recent years. The D.C. Circuit’s holding is is in acknowledged conflict with an Eleventh Circuit opinion from 2004. Intrasession appointments may be even more common than intersession appointments, so this is an important ruling as a practical matter. But the court also held (or at least stated) that the recess appointment power may only be used to fill vacancies that arise during the recess of the Senate.