Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Shot Down By U.S. Court of Appeals For Unconstitutional Act

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

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".


Actually, like I mentioned in my last post on the previous page, they worked on passing a payroll tax extension during this time. During which they met every 3 business days.
edit on 26-1-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
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.




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.


No -- this was yet another win for the "We don't believe in Government (doing any good) faction" in Washington. Because a Labor relations panel might be involved in looking out for workers. So nothing GOOD gets done in Washington, but the Republicans never hinder anything BAD being done in Washington.

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.

I don't think this point will gain much traction here, as the "I'm not a racist", or "I'm not a fascist" people who hate Obama look to blame him for cloudy days. There are problems in Washington -- but this aint it.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

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.


Agreed here....but....


It's 2013 -- why is Obama not able to finish appointing people to the government panels?


Because the Senate has the authority to confirm such appointments. In this case, it wasn't confirmed. That is the checks-and-balances of our system.


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.


ETA: You are wholly ignorant on the Constitution and American civics; I really hope you are not eligible to vote yet.

May I direct you to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution which explicitly states the following:


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.


Officers of the government are to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate (there are exceptions for lessor officers and that is delegated by law to those who are actually nominated and confirmed by the Senate).

On your second note, this has nothing to do with his 2nd term. These appointments were made during his first time. No one in Congress is denying that he is president. What planet do you live on?
edit on 26-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

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)


I love, and find ironic how some people like "cough"buster2010"cough" TRY to claim that only people who are in favor of labor are the middle class...


Labor doesn't mean "middle class"... There are PLENTY of Americans who do not like, and are not part of labor and they are middle class... I am part of the middle calss alongside MILLIONS of Americans and we do not belong to labor...

Any, and ALL labor require of their members not only to pay a fee, and vote for what big labor wants, but also to vote DEMOCRAT, which sorry to say is unConstitutional... But we know that MANY unConstitutional programs, and agencies have been implemented in the U.S. by both Democrats and some Republicans, but the mayority of them have been Democrats and progressive Democrats...


The American people should learn once and for all that the REPUBLIC of the United States is NOT a "democracy", but rather a Constitutional Republic with representatives... This REPUBLIC guarantees INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to EVERYONE...

But of course there are certain people who want to take away INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS in favor for "big government", even when history has shown that EVERY TIME "big government" takes away INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS such government and nation becomes dictatorial, which is EXACTLY what has been happening to the Republic of the United States...

People in the left are NEVER going to learn, even when dictators and dictator wannabes such as Karl Marx have stated, and I quote:

Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

www.brainyquote.com...

There is no escape from it. If you are in the left, and believe in socialism/communism you end up wanting to implement a dictatorship. Hitler did it, Mussolini did it, Mao did it, Lenin did it, Stalin did it, the castro borthers did it, etc, etc, etc...

Why is it that people continuously believe in the LIES from the left when history CLEARLY shows where these beliefs take us?

edit on 26-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

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.


No, implementing LEFTWING programs and beliefs has allowed for the "egregious actions in bypassing the Constitution" of the Republic of the U.S.

The left implemented and put in power the Feds/aka Federal Reserve, the biggest CORPORATION in the world. They implemented and gave power to the IRS with all it's PROGRESSIVE taxes...

Even the planks of communism clearly state that in a socialist/communist country there must be a "central bank" and progressive taxes, alongside other rules which the left is always trying to implement to convert a free nation into a nanny state/dictatorship...

I find it hilarious, and at the same time scary that government officials, and government institutions are in this day-and-age labeling people with certain BELIEFS as "extremists/terrorists" and most in the left, and even some people in the right and other ideologies in between are believing these LIES by the leftwing government...

Not only that, but these IDIOTS in power, and the citizens who agree with them, don't seem to understand why so many people are against them when in fact they want to take away certain INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS...

If you want to FORCE your will on people, not matter how good you feel about it, this makes you and those in power DICTATORS, or dictator wannabes...

FEAR is the worst enemy of a FREE PEOPLE...

Those in power ALWAYS use FEAR to control you, and everyone else under their boots.

If you think those in power will not turn against those of you who agree with them now, you are in for a rude awakening....

edit on 26-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Plus Presidents have been doing this for 30 years or so...these are activist, right wing judges who are themselves trying to end run the President's end run on GOP obstructionism.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


and therefore he's a puppet and a coward



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Every time this administration is told something they don't like or want to abide by they simply ignore it and do as they please. We are a nation of laws my friends. When this administration doesn't care for a law they deem themselves above the requirements of said law.

So are we now a dictatorship?

Those who would excuse this administrations response need to check themselves.




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.


link


His response seems to say we don't like, and we don't agree with it therefore we are going to ignore it.... stunning...
edit on 26-1-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Read between the lines people. This is not about anything other than Republicans wanting people on the board who are against unions. Why you ask? Because many republicans employ other people, as more of them are businesspeople when compared to dems. The majority of the rich are republicans, and that is not a secret. They are against unions because they want to pay workers as little as possible, as they can make more money this way. There is nothing unConstitutional about what Obama did, and if there was, I would be the first to jump on the issue.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


If you think there is nothing unConstitutional about what he did. And has done. Then you need to recheck what has gone on. Especially the things that would make certain things during this time as "Invalid"



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Amusing that people think this is a "win".

1. The Circuits are split on this. Other Circuit have ruled otherwise.

2. Nothing will change until it goes to SCOTUS. And if SCOTUS rules this to be the law (highly unlikely) it will negate decades of regulations and Executive branch actions by EVERY President who has done this (they all have).

3. It's only a 3 Judge Panel of the most Conservative Circuit. The full panel may indeed hear it.

4. Nothing changes until SCOTUS.

5. have any idea how many Conservative regs will be obviated if this holds? More than aything Obama has done.

Kinda sad certain Right Wing elements refuse to educate themselves.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I would like to believe in justice. However, I believe that Obama will just issue another executive order and bypass the judges who have ruled against him.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FeatherofMaat
 


Please provide us with links and proof, thanks.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Who are you to make these declarations? Why should I take your un-sourced and un-linked comments as valid?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I've been reading up more on this and this is significant. I think this nuance is being lost on many about this decision. Many are speculating that the Supreme Court will take up this case.




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.


link

So in a nutshell, there is a difference between an intersession recess and an intrasession recess. Also the ruling really goes a lot further saying that only vacancies that occur during the intercession recess can be filled by the President without Senate approval, and those vacancies MUST be filled during the same recess when the vacancy occurred.
edit on 26-1-2013 by MsAphrodite because: added link to quote



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by elouina[



Weakness, without pain, goes unchecked.


I thought a different song would come to mind...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


the USA is NOT A DEMOCRACY... it is a REPUBLIC!!
edit on 26-1-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Obama 2005: Recess appointees are “damaged goods;”

Obama 2010: Recess appointments are “critical” need.

LoL

Looks like both parties have been slapped by this ruling. It's a win for the proper separation of powers.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


There are even more regulations on filling vacancies that you missed. Besides the fact that the vacancies must appear during a recess. On a post of mine from page two you will see that the filled vacancies during a recess are only temporary and expire at the end of the next session.
edit on 26-1-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
66
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join