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

So, if he is indeed found to have went against the constitution or broken the constitution, does that mean he can be tried for breaking his oath? What would be the result?

Love how people want to support crushing the middle class.

reply to post by buster2010


What's sad is a lot of the people who want to crush the middle class are part of it. Not to mention some of the working poor.

reply to post by elouina


What you neglect to say is that the only reason the President made these appointments was because: 1) the republican's would not confirm his appointees (the republicans, as a strategy, block the Presidents appointments regardless of their qualifications and abilities); and 2) in order to deny him his right to make recess appointments without confirmation (as George Bush did repeatly) they used a procedural loophole to say the Senate was in session when in fact they had not met for weeks.

This is what happens when you have people who don't believe in governing in positions of power. They game the system, without regard to the consisquences and government that can't function.

President Bush, the 2nd, filled courts with idealilogically pure (republican party corporatists) appointees and I would imagine that this decision comes from those judges.

If you truly love the constitution you would fight this GAME PLAYING with our lives and future. Everybody is wrong sometimes - but we are in a state of perpetual 'stall' because of the obstruction of the excutive and legislative branches to function (at all) as Laid out in THE CONSTITUTION.

reply to post by Screwed


I like you man, I really, really like you.

reply to post by FyreByrd


So you are saying that if Obama doesn't get his way, he can just break the constitution, right? Then why do we have a constitution? Our senate was elected by the people for a reason. And that is to look out for our best interests. And why should the senate have to gavel in every day during recess to prevent a president from doing something underhanded? Shouldn't our president be trustworthy? So who's to say that Obama doesn't try it yet again for something more sinister? Our constitution is there to protect us from tyranny.

The only problem with President Obama's appointments, is that he isn't a member of the GOP, and it made the House and Senate look like idiots. (That really doesn't take too much in my opinion.) Any _other_ President was allowed to make appointments, so the issue isn't so much constitutionality, but party partisan politics trying to screw over the Sitting President. AKA the Do Nothing Congress.

But hey, your mileage may vary.
M.

reply to post by jaynkeel

Don't forget loss of jobs to because of greed and demanding all sorts of raises and paid healthcare and month long paid vacations during summer shutdowns.

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.

Oh and an auto industry ran into the ground because of the same practices and the public taxpayer having to absorb the loss of money and bailout.

If you check most of that has been repaid unlike the close to a trillion dollars we gave to wall street and the banks.

Yes at the beginning the unions were great they accomplished things others couldn't. Now days they are the root of the problem, sorry take your crap elsewhere.

The people who are the root of the problem are the ones making the most profit.

Originally posted by MrBigDave
So, if he is indeed found to have went against the constitution or broken the constitution, does that mean he can be tried for breaking his oath? What would be the result?

Nothing. He keeps smiling and moving "forward".

Sorry, if you didn't want the truth.

Ok I found out some even more interesting information. The senate was not just bumping gavels during the time that Obama did this. The Senate was busy passing the payroll tax extension. So can you really call this a pro forma session?

Oh and I found out a bit of history about what they do to presidents that do similar things. Andrew Johnson's primary offense was this:

The political backing to begin impeachment proceedings against the president came when Johnson breached the Tenure of Office Act by removing Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War, from the cabinet. The Tenure of Office Act, passed over Johnson's veto in 1867, stated that a president could not dismiss appointed officials without the consent of Congress.

Why Was Andrew Johnson Impeached?


Plus, his loophole was not even really a valid loophole that he could use. It was for the ability to TEMPORARILY fill seats that suddenly appear during a true recess.

The Recess Appointments Clause permits the president to make a temporary appointment when Congress is really out of session to vacancy that really first arises when Congress is really out of session -- as when it has adjourned sine die, lawyer-speak and Latin for “without date”. Under the Recess Appointments Clause, 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.” Id. art. II, § 2, cl. 3.

Yes, President Obama, the Constitution applies to you, too

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by elouina

 

While I agree with and appreciate your sentiment, you still don't fully get it yet. You said "It is about time Obama finally gets burned for bypassing the way our democracy is intended to work." If we were indeed a democracy, what he did would have been acceptable and this would have never gone to court. Because we are a Constitutional REPUBLIC, there are lines he is not allowed to cross, and that is why this went to court. My point is... please stop calling America a democracy, because when you do you contradict yourself.

I see America as a Constitutional Republic run along democratic principles.

Everyone happy?

Good, as you were.

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)

So.....you know more than 3 Federal Judges? What credentials do you have that should make me believe you over Federal Judges?

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.

The corrupt ones always try to do things when Congress is absent, even for a few days. That is how the Fed Reserve Act was done as well.

Finally, Obama is not getting a pass to just whatever the heck he wants.

And by the way, how is forcing the Presdient to follow the Constitution crushing the middle class? All this labor stuff is corruptionin the Unions, which Obama is totally in the thick of it, because they are working hard for the Communist Party.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Now Now, there is no connection.......

Originally posted by Moshpet
The only problem with President Obama's appointments, is that he isn't a member of the GOP, and it made the House and Senate look like idiots. (That really doesn't take too much in my opinion.) Any _other_ President was allowed to make appointments, so the issue isn't so much constitutionality, but party partisan politics trying to screw over the Sitting President. AKA the Do Nothing Congress.

But hey, your mileage may vary.
M.

Obama has been running all over Congress since the start of his first term. He is the most arrogant darn Prez Ive seen in my lifetime. They finally got something to stick.

reply to post by sonnny1


Good find Sonnny.

2nd

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

That is clear.

The constitution says nothing about labour relation boards.

He did his job, the courts did theirs. It's called checks and balances.

Now, who ever cares, Knows that Labour relation board appointees have to be confirmed by senators.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
...they used a procedural loophole to say the Senate was in session when in fact they had not met for weeks.

They were operating under continuing "pro forma" sessions and technically not adjourned. It was a practice often used by Senator Reid during President Bush to limit controversial appointments. Not saying it was good then or bad now, just giving background.

This is what happens when you have people who don't believe in governing in positions of power. They game the system, without regard to the consisquences and government that can't function.

The Senate did just as it should have, which is block a nomination they didn't want to confirm. Just because the president nominates someone doesn't mean it is the "duty" of the Senate to just confirm.

If you truly love the constitution you would fight this GAME PLAYING with our lives and future. Everybody is wrong sometimes - but we are in a state of perpetual 'stall' because of the obstruction of the excutive and legislative branches to function (at all) as Laid out in THE CONSTITUTION.

Agreed but the Senate again is using its power when it doesn't agree with the executive's appointees; that isn't obstructiveness, its Constitutional duty. If the appointee cannot get a floor vote, then either the president didn't pick someone good enough or they too are too ideological. Either way, you are correct in a manner of form.

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".

Folks judging from the situation, I still get the feeling we ain't seen nothing yet and BHO will not be satisfied until he crashes in flames without any compromise.
This is Murphy's pay back for constantly asking 'how could this get any worse?"
I don't know about the progressive globalist types but I haven't lost yet.
I won't lose my country now,true it looks pretty ugly now but as bad as it is,he is stepping on EVERYONE'S toes and the lefties are eating it up.Strange how hostile they are AFTER winning the election,they only burn themselves.

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

That is clear.

Sounds like he should read up on his actual job!


How often do we see things he's done being usurped....simply ridiculous.