Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

Thread: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

  1. #41
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Right there is the Problem with your reasoning. You say the Constitution is screwed up. Like most Progressives and Liberals do. Moreover while you try and blame Republicans for Democrats voting against Obama. Perhaps you should read up on history before accusing Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the Country and blaming those who stood for the Rights of Blacks and Women!

    Course then you shouldn't be so upset when the Chief Justice Stood Upon Constitutional Law.....evidenced.

    The White House had no immediate comment, but is expected to appeal the decision. The same issue is currently before several other federal appeals courts.

    "With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

    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.

    Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4, 2012, after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

    But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.

    "Either the Senate is in session, or it is in recess," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. "If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in "the Recess" described in the Constitution."

    Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise "the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch."

    The judge rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

    "Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Sentelle wrote.....snip~

    Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

    D.C. Circuit.....and as the Chief Justice Pointed out. Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of Powers.

    Of course that Counsel for the President from the Justice Dept tried to argue that the President has discretion to decide that the Senate was unable to perform its advice and consent function.

    Nothing like Obama trying to get round that Constitution with playing Partisan Politics.....while trying to expand the Powers of the Presidency.
    The ease in which the expansion, not only of the power of the Presidency but also the Federal Government has taken place is a clear indicator that the Constitution IS "screwed up".

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    The ease in which the expansion, not only of the power of the Presidency but also the Federal Government has taken place is a clear indicator that the Constitution IS "screwed up".
    Myself.....I would say it is more so those who are doing the interpretation. Course I feel they should be psychological evaluated every 3 years to make sure they are sound of mind.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Good News for the Right.....Some more Bad news for the Left!



    Which this what has those Democrats and liberals worried. Not counting the gun issue either.

  4. #44
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    I wonder if he appointed some of his corrupt union thug friends to the board.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #45
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Myself.....I would say it is more so those who are doing the interpretation. Course I feel they should be psychological evaluated every 3 years to make sure they are sound of mind.

    Oh, I agree that those doing the interpreting come up with some real humdingers no doubt, but if the text they were interpreting wasn't so vague....

    3 years?!?!?!? You know how much damage these politicians can do in 3 years????

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Oh, I agree that those doing the interpreting come up with some real humdingers no doubt, but if the text they were interpreting wasn't so vague....

    3 years?!?!?!? You know how much damage these politicians can do in 3 years????
    Yeah, but Civil court already recognizes 2yrs thru the court in considering a New Psychological. So that's why I said 3. Also I would state they are not allowed to choose their own Psychologist to conduct the Evaluation. As well as that there be no more life time appointments. No more Free Rides!

  7. #47
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yeah, but Civil court already recognizes 2yrs thru the court in considering a New Psychological. So that's why I said 3. Also I would state they are not allowed to choose their own Psychologist to conduct the Evaluation. As well as that there be no more life time appointments. No more Free Rides!
    I'm likely to agree with you on ending the lifer system. Don't know for certain but I can only imagine the original reasoning behind this was to promote some sort of stability. Being one who takes the time to vote each and every incumbent judge out every election cycle regardless of party -- I definitely would like to come up with an alternative.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Presently the republicans in congress are voluntarily dysfunctional. They don't care about who obama appoints, they just want to do everything in their power to stop the operation of the government in order to pretend it is the fault of the president. It looks like it is true Obama overstepped his power in this case, but a job needed to be done and he did it despite the hissy fit congressional republicans are throwing. Sure, the president should face whatever penalties come from such an overstep, but almost the entirety of the republican congress should all face treason charges for their attempts to sabotage the country and make it fail because they don't like the president.

    Considering the recent fit of the reps, and what it has done to damage this country by deliberately undermining it I think we certainly need some new rules regarding appointments. We should end the ability for a party to keep necessary positions vacant like this because they hate america. The best solution i see is to have the president nominate at least 3 choices and then have congress forced to pick one of them. That would end this whole thing, allow congress to do their job and approve appointments without allowing them to tank the government for fun and profit.
    I agree with much of your post except the "they hate America" part. I wouldn't even say that many Republicans hate Pres. Obama; but I would say they don't like him very much for two very obvious reasons, neither of which bare repeating because they've been outlined in this forum consistently over the last four years. With that said, it's time the GOP stopped being such obstructionist and just get on with the business of helping to improve conditions in this country on a number of fronts.

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    As to the issue at hand concerning the President's recess appointments, I think folks should also read this segment from the OP article:

    The court's decision acknowledges that it conflicts with what other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.

    Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

    But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

    GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members
    to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.
    Simply put: If prior federal appeals courts have upheld these same types of pro forma recess appointment by sitting Presidents in the past, there's no way the SCOUS will uphold the lower court's ruling because the precidence for such Presidential appoints has long been established.

    Although I did find other articles and/or white papers that addressed the parameters of Presidential recess appointments conducted in the past, I thought this article summarized the issue much clearer, "President's Power to Recess Appoint". What's in question is simply this: "Do pro forma recesses constitute an break from Congress conducting their normal day-to-day business or is it merely a mechanism used by the minority party in Congress to block Presidential recess appointments much as the filibuster is used to block passage of Senate legislation?"

    In short, if all you're doing is taking attendance, reading some letter from grandma before the Senate President Pro Tempe or just gavelling in to chew the fat then gavel out to leave after a 5 minute water cooler chat, do such brief interactions by members of Congress constitute Congress as being in full recess per the Constitution, which reads:

    Art. II, Sect. 2:

    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.
    Notice that there's nothing in this section of the Constitution that sets a limit on how long Congress must be in recess before the President can make his recess appointment. However, here's what Art. I, Sect. 5 says on the matter of Congressional recesses and adjournments:

    Clause 1:
    Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
    Clause 4:
    Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
    Doesn't say that the Congress must be adjourned (or in recess) for no less than 3-days before a recess appointment can be made; just that no House of Congress - House of Reps or the Senate - can adjourn for more than 3 days without the consent of the other.

    In my view, the President's recess appointments are Constitutional. Once the Senate "gavels out", they're no longer in session and, therefore, ARE in recess even if only for a minute.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 01-26-13 at 11:05 AM.

  10. #50
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Court: Obama Appointments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Funny how all the supposed supporters of strict constitutionalism are backing the GOP in their blatant attempt to circumvent the constitution.

    I'm glad a president stepped up to try and end this obstructionist practice. (Which both parties engage in) I hope the appointments are upheld on appeal.
    In case you missed it, it is not the GOP circumventing the constitution.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •