It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by buster2010
No they were not unconstitutional. The appointments were made during a three day recess. The constitution doesn't state how long the senate must be at recess before the president can make a recess appointment. They tried this once before in Mackie vs Clinton and lost. Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions But the end of the FOX article shows who is really behind all of this.

The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members

Love how people want to support crushing the middle class.
edit on 25-1-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

I was thinking the same thing - the court made up their own law here. It won't stick. Hate to break it to all the foreign billionaires here, but labor unions have not been stricken their final blow yet.

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by dogstar23

No they did not make up their own law. The unconstitutional act was challanged by a business. And the justices had to abide by the laws already in place. Just because someone broke the law before you and got away with it (due to it not being challenged), doesn't suddenly make it legal. I am not even going to ask for you to back up your claims because of this.

If fact, look what one person accomplished. How soon do we forget that "we the people", do have the courts standing behind us. Perhaps more of us should make a stand for our constitution.
edit on 26-1-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:45 PM
You called the US a democracy.
You do realize it's a republic right?

Anyways, good share - thanks for this !

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:52 PM
Nevermind, please delete.
edit on 26-1-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:06 PM
After some research, I find Carney's statement of "150 years of precedents" laughable. First we have to go back further in our nation's history to get a solid grasp of the situation. During our formative years after ratifying the United States Constitution, Congress wasn't in long-session as we are used to seeing in our modern political makeup. In fact, the Constitution only sets the minimum for when Congress shall meet and for the most part, Congress wasn't meeting day in, day out for months at a time to conduct business.

During those years, vacancies in certain positions in which the Executive must appoint an officer to the advice and consent of the Senate, fell typically within a recessed Congress. It was seen, at that time, that a full-time Congress was not needed and typically they met only for a couple months at a time and the rest of the time was spent in their respective states.

This brings us to the our modern day Congress and how they handle their sessions. From what I have gathered, the first year-long session of Congress was the 65th Congress of 1917. They operated from December to November. After that it started to continually grow and eventually into a year-round Congress.

This form of our Legislature has created this ambiguity when it comes to "recess" or "adjourned" sessions. Some historical precedents regarding recess appointments follows:

1814: Senator Gore debated the action of President Madison and his appointment of an officer to an office that didn't exist (yet created during recess and thus considered "vacant"). He resolved that for an office to be vacant, it must be full first. In dissent to this view, Senator Horsey stated that regardless of how the vacancy occurs, as so long as that vacancy occurs during a recessed Senate, it can be temporarily filled by the President.

As read, the authority of the President to fill a vacancy has certain clauses that need to be met:
1 - Senate must be in recess
2 - That vacancy occurred during that recess.

This isn't an either/or situation and must both be met before the President has the Constitutional authority to appoint a temporary officer to a position.

1822: Senate Committee on Military Affairs concluded the following view upon the recess appointment clause:

The committee believe[s] this is the fair construction of the Constitution, and the one heretofore observed. For many instances have occurred where offices have been created by law, and special power was given the President to fill those offices in the recess of the Senate; and no instance has before occurred, within the knowledge of the committee, where the President has felt himself authorized to fill such vacancies, without special authority by law.

This states unless authorized by law, the President hasn't the power to fill an office that is brought into effect during a recessed Senate.

So far, the Executive was trying for a power grab at this point by holding onto the wording "may happen" to fill vacancies that had the prospect of being vacant during the Senate session but filled during them during recess by presidential appointment.

This brings us up to Carney's claims of precedents. In a way, he is correct but it is still laughable. During the Civil War, the Executive flexed its muscle and held the view that not only can the president fill vacancies that had the potential during Senate sessions but only became vacant during recess, but that it could fill vacant spots that predate that recess (here is that "precedent" that the Obama Administration is sighting; used of course by other administrations).

Further, not only did the Executive grab this power, Congress acquiesced it willfully by only threatening to withhold pay of those appointments. Which then leads us to today. Ultimately in 1855 the Senate made its objections known and vehemently opposed this power-grab; but they have since given up.
edit on 26-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by ResistTreason
Our President obviously needs to spend some time actually reading the Constitution of America.

That is clear.

but..but...but...he is a constitutional law professor...

Look peeps, Obama has no respect for the Constitution, his own ACTIONS have proven this. Indefinite detention being one of the major ones.

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:48 PM
Well you still have to wait and hold your breath until the Supreme Court makes the final decision. With as president-friendly as the court has been in recent years it may be doubtful that the decision will stand.
edit on 26-1-2013 by infopost because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

I agree completely. It's ridiculous that recent presidents have taken an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution and seem to do their best to actually accomplish the opposite.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by buster2010
Why is it greed when the middle class wants these things but they are a fraction of what the upper management gets? Look at how some of these CEO's get millions when they lose their jobs. These people really produce nothing like a person working on the floor.

My point exactly!

It has taken a lot of work to convince society of the idiot notion that poverty was somehow created by other poor people.

Consider the CEO of Chase Bank. The amount of money this ONE MAN acquired through tax loopholes (he paid ZERO in taxes, and in addition, RECEIVED money for taxes) is greater than the combined cost if every single person under the poverty line in America stole a car.

If you consider society to be just a game, where it's fine to get away with whatever you can get away with, then there's nothing wrong with any of this.

But stop talking about "constitutionalism" and all that BS, because you don't really care about it.

However, if you consider that a person has a responsibility to do what is RIGHT, then it is crystal clear that those in power at the top of society are directly responsible for the increased poverty and the widening gap between the rich and poor. It has nothing to do with "welfare moms" and all that idiot propaganda.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:17 PM
This is republicans posturing. Nothing else!!

Neither the republicans or democrats want to bring back and keep jobs in america. This is what should have been done first before the eltist-controlled morons kept barking about taxes, who should pay more and who should pay less. You can't pay taxes on money that you fail to earn, regardless if it is business or personal income.

Distractions, distractions, distractions, distractions. The hypocrisy has been unreal for about 15 years now! But you get what you vote for. I am sure the eltist-controlled corporate media knows really well how to shape public opinion by omitting and distorting facts inorder to acheive the pre-agreed upon agenda. I have stopped watching news now for about 5 years and only tune in to special events and whatnot. They are that pathetic!

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
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.

Are you kidding me?... LABOR IS BIG BUSINESS... when are people like you going to understand this?... You think LABOR is not big business?...

Want to see some secrets about your "idlolized" labor unions?...

These are the top 20 recipients that recieve money from labor unions...

Top 20 Recipients





1. Obama, Barack (D) $413,556

2. Hochul, Kathleen (D-NY) House $405,500

3. Hahn, Janice (D-CA) House $368,749

4. Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) House $368,250

5. Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) House $363,700

6. Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) House $346,500

7. McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) Senate $344,000

8. Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) Senate $341,356

9. Kaine, Tim (D-VA) $339,250

10. Critz, Mark (D-PA) House $335,500

11. Barber, Ron (D-AZ) House $334,250

12. Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) House $332,500

13. Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY) House $319,150

14. Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) House $316,745

15. Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House $306,270

16. Rahall, Nick (D-WV) House $304,000

17. Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Senate $299,950

18. Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) $298,550

19. Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) House $298,500

20. Tester, Jon (D-MT) Senate $291,250

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

All donations took place during the 2011-2012 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, November 12, 2012.

Do you not notice how all the 20 recipients are PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS in power right now?... All these PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS and other LEFTWINGERS recieve from labor unions from almost $300,000 to over $400,000 dollars, and that's just what the top recipients get, and that's what they got for the 2011-2012 elections...

In 2006 there were 15.4 million people in labor unions. Let's say that there are 20-25 million people now in labor unions, are you going to tell us this is a "mayority" and only they are the middle class or poor class out of 350 million plus Americans?...

BTW, how about you post PROOF that a mayority of rich people are "Republicans"?...

If there was ANY truth to your claim we wouldn't have a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT administration and President in power right now...

If there was ANY truth to your claims, then the UN, and all the main agencies, and government institutions in the world wouldn't be implementing LEFTWING IDEOLOGIES AND PROGRAMS...

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
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.

You are just showing nothing more than ignorance sorry to say... Even Hollywood is LEFTWING, and MOST Hollywood knuckleheads actors and actresses are LEFTWINGERS, and they are RICH...

Not only that but there are PLENTY of other LEFTWINGERS who are not only rich, but richer than many Republicans.

Being a Republican, or conservative DOESN'T mean being rich, or being in favor of big corporations, heck DEMOCRATS in power are in favor of the BIGGEST corporation in the world known as the Feds/aka the Federal Reserve... Progressive Democrats put that corporation known as the Feds in power, and gave power and funed the IRS...

This claim of yours that a mayority of rich people are Republicans is nothing more than one of the most ignorant comments made in forums and threads like this one...

BTW, you should listen to this, about how much money union bosses make a year...

edit on 27-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add info and comments.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

We already know labor unions donate money to the democrats? So what?

Big business donates much, much, much more to the republicans. Big business also donates money to the democrats to keep progressivism in check. Big business wins regardless if democrats or republicans win.

BOTH parties are right wing(status-quo) monsters.

There is ABSOLUTELY no progressivism in setting up the federal reserve AND keeping the illusionary benefits of free trade alive. Both federal reserve and free trade agreements serve the stockholders of various big corporations and treasury bond investors.

You and most other conservatives keep calling liberals as progressives. I stopped getting annoyed a long time ago with such blatant distortions of the truth. If you guys really believe the tripe you spew on the internet forumns then you have been propagandised to death and I feel sorry for you.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:15 PM
In the grand scheme of things, this story is pretty inconsequential but it's nice to see one little blip of light in this vast, empty darkness.

My only consolation is that little things like this tend to be the types of things that wear politicians down. Slowly but surely. We could not vote the dirtbag out but we can hopefully see him slowly wear himself out fighting silly little legal battles like this one.

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:17 AM
Just thought I would add an important update. One of Obamas unconstitutional appointees was indicted on racketeering charges this month. This new information certainly makes one wonder what other shady connections Obama has.

President Barack Obama controversially appointed Griffin to the NLRB in January 2012 in a move some observers described as illegal. He never faced confirmation hearings or standard background checks.

The allegations appear in a lengthy complaint filed against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). The lawsuit alleges numerous violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and names Griffin, IUOE’s former general counsel, as a defendant.

Obama NLRB Appointee Indicted on Racketeering Charges
edit on 30-1-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in