E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the wake of a decision Friday by the court of appeals in Washington that President Barack Obama’s appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board was invalid, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was not affected by the court’s decision.
Obama’s appointments of both the NLRB members and of Corday were made on Jan. 4, 2012.
Related: Court rules against Obama appointments to labor board
A court of appeals has struck down Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray's appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and if today's ruling stands, it will eliminate a power that presidents of both parties have used for over a century. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Republican senators had blocked a vote on Corday’s nomination in an attempt to get Obama to agree to changes in the structure of the CFPB, an agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which almost all Republican members of Congress had voted against.
In May 2011, Republican senators sent a letter to Obama saying that no nominee to head the CFPB would be confirmed unless he agreed to changes to the CFPB’s structure, including replacing the director with a board to oversee the agency, making it more akin to other federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission.
According to the White House, Obama’s appointments of the three NLRB members and of Cordray were “recess appointments” which he made when the Senate was not in session.
But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Friday the NLRB appointments “were constitutionally invalid” because the Senate was not in recess, as specified by the Constitution.
If a president were free “to decide when the Senate is in recess,” it “would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases,” the court said.
But Carney said the court’s ruling applied only to the litigant in the specific challenge before the court and had no wide implications.
“The decision that was put forward today had to do with one case, one company, one court” he told reporters. “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.”
Saying they were constitutionally invalid, a federal appeals court rejects President Obama's "recess" appointments to a labor board last year. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
It seems likely the Justice Department will appeal Friday’s decision to the Supreme Court.
"We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the Justice Department said in a one-line statement.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that the appeals court decision “now casts serious doubt on whether the President’s ‘recess’ appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the president announced at the same time, is constitutional.”
George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki, a critic of the CFPB, said Friday on a conference call sponsored by the Federalist Society that the Cordray appointment is no different from the NLRB appointments: “The assumption has been that they rise or fall together. If the NLRB appointments were invalid, then Cordray’s was.”
He said any regulation issued by the CFPB “would presumably now be invalid,” including its rules on mortgages and non-bank lenders.
Leave a Comment:
American People and The Constitution 1
King obama and the liberals 0
As it is Friday afternoon and happy hour...I raise my glass to the court and hope this will not be the last time they rule infavor of the People of the United States against Obama's end run around the law. God Bless the USA.
Heya Canary.....
Go to a Communist country if you don't believe in the U.S. Constitution and our higher court.
And just think.....we have to put up with this for 4 more years unless Mr. Obama is impeached for signing Exeuctive Orders and bypassing Congressioinal procedures.
Isn't it great how the WH is pretending this affects only one case and not a whole year of NLRB operation? If this one case is overturned, this has precedent on any case involving NLRB rules this year. Amazing that the WH thinks the whole NLRB year isn't blown by this case.
For a constitutional scholar, Obama's WH sure is deft in legal matters.
Jesse -
Wouldn't that be daft instead of deft?
Gee - so the legislative branch can now run roughshod over the executive branch - in violation of the constitution and the morons posting here support this? So if a republican is ever in the WH in the future, will they support the same thing happening?
Last time I looked, the senate is REQUIRED to vote (advise & consent) on presidential appointments. The republicans have repeatedly violated their oath to uphold the constitution by denying a vote by the use of a parlimentary game.
What did Palin say about obstructionist politicians? Something about people exercizing their second amendment rights? I hope those republicans wear bullet proof vests.
J Wilson...respectfully you should do your research first before commenting. If you had you'd know that the appointment is legal by virtue of the U.S. Constitution...Article II Section II accordingly, "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." Refer to the website of: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Kindly, you might also be surprised to know that Former President George Bush used this very power 171 times, Former President Bill Clinton used this power 139 times, and as of January, 2012 President Obama used this power 32 times to fill full time positions. Those who argue this is not legal should brush up on their U.S. Constitution. Reference this information at the Senate's source provided... http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A
POTUS and Liberals in fact did score legally and for the positive.
interested observer & Mary..... not even an "imperial president" like Barak is above the Constitution!
A federal appeals court has unanimously slapped down President Barack Obama’s unprecedented claim that he can decide when the Senate is in session.
“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” said the three-judge decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle.
The decision bolsters a series of GOP complaints that Obama is refusing to enforce laws that he does not like. For example, he has declined to enforce numerous immigration laws and a pro-marriage law.
@interested observer...
If the word "obstructionist" didn't exist...
How in the world would you liberals form a cogent sentence?
Anyone, any group, any entity, that disagrees with this Administration's policies or decision-making is immediately labeled as such.
Last time I checked, this was the reason our Founders designed the system of checks and balances with our three branches of Government.
We're SUPPOSED to disagree! This is not "OBSTRUCTIONISM" , this is the way our Government is DESIGNED TO WORK!!!
What is "MISSING" from this equation is "COMPROMISE"...
And, lessee.....
I seem to remember King Barry saying he would NOT compromise...
So, WHO is the "OBSTRUCTIONIST", HUH?
This President has used and abused his powers to end-run the Constitution since he was elected.
It is about time he got his AZZ handed to him by the Federal Courts.
Let the unraveling begin....This Constitutional Law Lecturer has a problem understanding The Constitution as written, opposed to the one that he thought should have been written....
One has to be concerned what it was he taught those students.....
It is a slippery slope when the government ignores laws (immigration, recess appointments, executive orders, etc.) others start to ignore laws (states, sheriffs, etc.)
Mary911256,
There is a difference between what Obama did and every other President, including George W. Bush. Obama's appointments were made when the Senate was in session. This was never done before. In addition, some of Obama's recess appointments were never even presented to the Senate for confirmation.
Interesting how Mary and observer believe they can discredit three judges whose profession is knowing the law! What are YOUR qualifications?
This three judge panel of the U.S. Court of appeals for the district of Columbia circuit appears to a majority for the Republican party, this is very musty, this leftover GOP rule is why we have problems in American !!!
If Congress was not operating under their own form of legislative format instead of the internationally recognized Roberts Rules of Order, neither body of Congress would get away with their "pro-forma" so-called sessions where ONE member pounds the gavel and declares the body in session, then walks away from the podium. THAT is what both the House and Senate have been doing during their extensive non-sessions (actually vacations and junkets at our expense) to get around the Constitution's definition of recess appointments. They are violating the Constitution with this form of "session".
Seaskip & anti-trust.... what don't you understand about Obama making "recess" appointments when the Senate was STILL in session. Whether you and your "wonderful leader" like it or not, the Constitution IS STILL the Constitution, and the "internationally recoginized Roberts Rules of Order" have NO relevance in the Laws OUR Land.
Roberts court works around the Constitution to get the good old boys fat, the devil works in mysterious ways !!!
Watching the Friday Daily White House was painful, Press Secretary Jay Carney sure knows how to avoid answering questions -- spin , spin, spin that is what news has become.
ouch
This practice has been common for many years. It's a response to the GOP Senators refusing to even consider nominees. And in fact, it may be of questionable legality for the GOP to suggest that they are "always in session" when they are clearly not. It would be simple to resolve this matter but, as usual, the GOP doesn't want to resolve it. They want only to impede the operation of the govt and want to oppose anything suggested by Obama. Only a repgnican would look to continue protecting those who brought us the great recession. I wonder why these same Senators and GOP crackers weren't bothered by this practice when Boy George did it.
All there is to it is, get rid of Dumbama before he does some damage that can not be so easily fixed.
This moron of a president is dangerous to all of us and the Constitution.
Do away with Obummer. He is no American anyway the way he is looking at and handling the laws of this country. Just a self centered narcissistic jerk.
shipwrecked: The problem is that too many voters want their obamaphone. There's a reason that he appeals only to the ignorant. If he actually tried to make an intelligent argument that intelligent people would agree with, then he wouldn't have been re-elected. That's why the full extent of their arguments in support of running up the deficit and raising taxes is "it's Bush's fault" and "the repubs prevented me from getting everything I asked for." Of course, he got 99.9% of what he wanted, but, it always seems to be the part he didn't get that is too blame. I guess there is a third part of the equation and that is "things are just great thanks to Obama!" Never mind the fact that so many people haven't noticed it. If the WH and NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC say things are great, then they must be.
Two steps forward and one step back is still forward progress. Too bad the President has to struggle to find legal loopholes to get the business of the country done. The whole nation can't stand still while the poor loser Repulicans find every way they can to do nothing and get paid for it. These financial protection entities were created to protect EVERY American from another Wall Street created financial disaster. The Repubs in congress will stand on their heads and kiss any ass to protect their wealthy campaign contributors who own their souls. They are protecting the same people who destroyed your retirement, lost you your home, lost you your job and then took bailouts from the government and you want to cheer when the court tries to weaken it??? Oh, and do you all pick up the name calling from Rush Limbaugh or do you make it up yourself? You do know, don't you that name calling is the final resort of people who have no other logical argument?
Mike in Delray....."Let the unraveling begin....This Constitutional Law Lecturer has a problem understanding The Constitution as written, opposed to the one that he thought should have been written....One has to be concerned what it was he taught those students....."
One has to wonder what Herveeerd taught Obama.
Wait a minute.....Mr. Obama has certainly put the bucks out to "cloak" his college records....et al.
mountainlady: Too bad you have spent your entire life in the mountains and haven't learned American History. There is a thing called the Constitution and, contrary to the socialist media and politicians, it really is the foundation of our country. You are obviously a typical lib who has no problem living under a dictator. You obviously think Obama should be able to rule the country the way he wants, regardless of the will of the people, the Congress or the Courts. Feel free to move to 90% of the other countries of the world where the leaders have the unfettered power to do what they want, just like you think should be done. So, do everyone a favor, and prove yourself true to your word, when the next republican president takes over, do what he says and criticize everyone who disagrees with him/her. Obviously, you agreed with everything that Bush did, since he was President and you certainly must agree that he could do no wrong and shouldn't have been opposed. The evil, greedy democrats should never have been elected, right?
Witchrunner.... from your confused and rabid diatribe I take it you are a Libertarian or an anarchist. I have rarely agreed with any Republican president but have respected them as President of the United States. It is considered the right way to do things in my generation, to respect the President. I have voted in every election since Richard Nixon became president and I think I have a better grasp on how our government works than you. I greatly disagreed with Ronald Reagan but never called him names. I disagreed with George H. W. Bush but respected him also. I voted for Bill Clinton and found him brilliant but undisciplined. I disagreed severely with George Bush Jr. and had to struggle to respect him at all because he was quite honestly one of the least intelligent presidents we have ever had. I voted for President Obama twice and respect him enormously. I have never blindly accepted anyone's rule but I OBEY THE LAW. It's part of being a citizen of a civilized country. Apparently you have no respect for that. The wise men who wrote the constitution intended it to be a living document... intended it to flex to fit the needs of each generation. It is the President's job to defend the constitution and it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine how the constitution is to be interpreted in each generation. The president is supposed to be a leader. As such he uses those powers deeded to him by the constitution. President Obama has never deliberately violated the constitution although obviously his interpretation displeases you. There are many of us who feel that George Bush violated the constitution to enact the Patriot Act. Fortunately for all of us neither you nor I nor the lesser courts are the final arbiters of constitutionality. That power belongs to the Supreme Court. I suggest you take a Valium and read the oath that immigrants take when they become new citizens. I fear that too many Americans have forgotten what it means to be a good citizen. A little civil disobedience goes a long way. Oh, by the way, I lived for 15 years in a suburb of Washington D.C. and my father worked for the US Department of Interior for over 40 years. I think I just might have a handle on how our government works. So are you trying to tell us that it was the will of the people that rich bankers and Wall Street investors should lead our country nearly into a great depression? Are you serious?
It’s hard to comprehend why any American citizen would support the Republican Party for opposing a federal agency whose sole purpose is to protect average people from getting screwed over by banks and credit card companies.
Are Republican voters so stupid that they continue to be suckered by the Republican/Tea Party leadership into believing that the Republican Party actually represents them? It makes one wonder how well educated these poor people really are.
Now that I think about it, I realize that these are the same people that still think an idiot like Sarah Palin is the best thing to come along since sliced bread.
Really, is that what you think this group will do? Please read the directive of this agency and see the enormous costs associated with. And, yes a gov. of a state has significantly more relevant experience when compared to a community organizer from Chicago.
Livefreeordie-2844370 That former community organizer has served as President of the United States for four years. It is refreshing that he has not been in the political arena long enough to sell his soul to the highest bidder like most Republican pols (and, yes, even some Democrats) so he looks out for the regular folks. Whatever is being spent to protect the financial interests of the average hard working American is not a fraction of the amount spent by the 1% to pay off politicians to protect their billions. Get a clue here... the Republicans don't care about the people of this country unless you make more than a million a year. I agree with BigAlLasVegas.... it makes a person question the intelligence of GOP voters.
mountainlady -
And Obama didn't learn squat in those 4 years or he wouldn' keep trying to do end-runs around the Constitution!
As witchrunner said, you obviously think it's ok to by-pass the Constitution as long as it is Obama and the democrats doing it. Personally, I would like to see Obama up on treason charges - because trying to set himself up as a dictator certainly qualifies as treason.
I also agree with witchrunner when he/she says that you may be more comfortable living in one of the other countries whose government you so admire.
Don't let the door hit you in the behind either!
mountainlady: Thank you for letting me know where you come from. The fact that you've lived in the D.C. burbs for 15 years and that your father worked for the Dept. of Interior for 40 years does a lot to explain where you are coming from. Add to that your comment "Too bad the President has to struggle to find legal loopholes to get the business of the country done." Pretty much says all one needs to know about you. I'm very familiar with bureaucracies. From where you are coming from, government is the all powerful and the people better not get in it's way. Most people in government, your father obviously included, see that they have a mission because they were hired by the government, and any restrictions placed on them amounts to an obstacle that they have to dance around to get to where they want to go. You see, your "obstacles" that you think Obama has to dance around are what everyone else calls "the law of the land." Obama's job is not to "get around the law" but to enforce the law. His job is essentially to do what Congress tells him to do. It is not to ignore Congress and the Courts so he can do what he wants.
And, there really is nothing confusing about what I've written, it's just that you think that government should have the power to do what it wants and that Obama must be allowed to do what he wants to do. And, no, you don't really respect all presidents. In fact, you only respect the most liberal and socialist of them.
The fact is that respect has to be earned. Just because one gets elected to a political office doesn't mean they have earned any respect. In fact, Obama, more than any President in my lifetime, has shown more disrespect to the people of this country and the opposition party than any other President. Quite frankly, the guy is an out and out bully and a thug. His statements continually show disrespect to our country, our citizens, and our laws.
And, no, Obama is not smart. No socialist liberal can be smart by definition. Socialism has never produced a prosperous society in the history of mankind. In fact, it has destroyed every society that has ever tried it. So, there is no way anyone who wants to follow the proven path to the destruction of our country can possibly be "intelligent."
You think you show respect to everyone? "I disagreed severely with George Bush Jr. and had to struggle to respect him at all because he was quite honestly one of the least intelligent presidents we have ever had." You call that respect? That is what one calls following the Allinsky theory and talk about one thing and hope people are too stupid to ask the right questions.
It's about time the little dictator got slapped.
Doesn't the very fact that we have a court system that reversed his recess appointments; AND the fact that they were reversed because we have a Senate that was not in recess; actually PROVE that President Obama is not a dictator?
Typically, dictators are able to do whatever they wish, without judicial or legislative interference. Your comment is therefore is invalid as it is ignorant.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You are right Clotho......we should really refer to him as wannabe dictator because he will never be a dictator in this country.
Wait a minute....I thought that was a coronation instead of a swearing in. How did dicator come into play.
Yeah, you're right, Clotho...
That was an ignorant statement....
That's the best "defense" you can come up with for your Campaigner-in-Chief (that's still IN campaign mode)...
"Wannabe Dictator", excuse us....
@StockpilingBulletsinMN
Did it bother you when Boy George did the same thing? How can the Senate "always be in session" when they're not even in Washington? What a flagrant joke. If the jackasses would do their jobs and stop the obstruction, recess appointments wouldn't be necesary.
@tobnpr
The same post as above goes for you. It wasn't Obama that sinded the Patriot Act. So why is it that only now all the repugs are terrified of govt intrusion and overreach? Are we suffering from a little jungle fever? Is the dark scary to you?
Thomas Blue.... what don't you understand about Obama making "recess" appointments when the Senate was STILL in session. Whether you and your "wonderful leader" like it or not, the Constitution IS STILL the Constitution, and the "internationally recoginized Roberts Rules of Order" have NO relevance in the Laws of OUR Land.
Comments about President Obama calling him a "dictator" or his swearing in ceremony was a "coronation". You guys should go and worship at the temple of Bush and Cheney for a while; maybe that will bring back some fond memories of the "good old days".
I'm not saying Bush and Cheney were dictators, far from it they were just the guys that allowed their rich pals to rip off trillions of dollars from the economy..... So tell me again why President Obama is such bad guy.
Please follow the money. Look at what happened to the stimulus money, or the money given to "green" corporations. Politicians of all parties enrich friends and family. This fact is easily seen when investigated but we americans always have the same attitude and ignorance of "throw the bums out, just not my bum"
The constitution rules, Obama sucks.
and obama is an ass....
Yes, because the Constitution meant for the GOP to blackmail the president in attempt to override signed legislation legally passed by congress, on issues completely unrelated to appointments being made by the President.
Their obstruction has nothing to do with the qualifications of the person appointed to the position. It's about their dislike of an agency created under the Frank-Dodd law.
GOP...Obstruction is Job #1. About the only job they've focused on for the last four years...
WRONG.....the biggest obstructionist in our Congressiional Halls is no other than Senator "Pocket Veto" Reid.
And he has been "focused on that" since the opposition took control of the HOUSE in 2010.
ldo, in case you hadn't noticed, Democrats currently have the majority in the Senate. Why would Reid need to 'veto' (sorry, your words) a bill when he already has a majority in the Senate?
That statement makes no sense.
DJ,
Obama broke the law. The court has spoken. As a result, hundreds of rulings that the NLRB has made will be vacated.
Nice job Obama of waisting more taxpayer money due to your incompetence. I suspect there will be more of this to come, not the least which will be partial rulings against Obamacare. What a mess.
That's an interesting point Truth Conveyer. Obama has made 9 such appointments. The court ruling was not specific to Obama, but to all recess appointments since 1921.
Reagan: 33
Bush: 19
Clinton: 17
Bush II: 21
Obama: 9
You were saying something about wasted time and cost due to recess appointments?
Perhaps if the GOP would actually debate the merits of said appointments, rather than trying to circumvent the Presidential appointments using blackmail on unrelated matters, we wouldn't see such wasted time?
I should note those are on average per year for the number of years each President has served.
The raw total numbers are:
Obama 29
George W Bush: 171
Clinton made 139
George H.W. Bush 77
Ronald Reagan: 243
When the president is wrong, you oppose him. When this president has any good ideas, we, the People, will support him.
DJ you are wrong Obama is the first President to give recess appointments when the Senate was actualy legaly in session. This is why the court ruled it unconstituitonal becaue if the Senate is leagly in session they have to be appointed and go through the process. Now had they actualy been in recess then it would be constituitonal.
High rolla, considering that 'legally' in session hasn't been decided yet (many other courts would disagree on this very same topic), this will probably end up with the Supreme Court. The appointments were done on a day that congress was not in session. They were opening a session every three days and then closing it shortly after. They conducted no business.
Having someone show up at the Senate, declare it is in session, only to turn around and state that the days session has ended is meaningless.
SCOTUS will most likely decide this.
DJ
So it was meaningless when Harry Reid did the EXACT SAME THING during the Bush Administration?
Exactly Reid is the one who came up with this idea so the President couldnt sneak one through. In fact it worked with Bush he didnt try to sneak anybody through. Obamas thinking was he could make the determination that congress was not in session.
High rolla, considering that 'legally' in session hasn't been decided yet...
Actually, it has. The Constitution defines when the senate is in recess.
Bush just bankrupted the Postal Service during a lame duck executive order. Big business loves that. In a few more years they will be able to hire illegals and pay them minimum wage to deliver the mail.
DJ, You're an IDIOT...... here are the FACTS
A federal appeals court has unanimously slapped down President Barack Obama’s unprecedented claim that he can decide when the Senate is in session.
“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” said the three-judge decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle.
The decision bolsters a series of GOP complaints that Obama is refusing to enforce laws that he does not like. For example, he has declined to enforce numerous immigration laws and a pro-marriage law.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Obama -144
Bush II - 291
Clinton - 364
Bush I - 166 (1 term)
Reagan - 381
Thanks for the personal attack ssmithlg. Typically the result of someone without a strong argument. The Appointments Clause doesn't set a minimum time period for a "recess". Another federal appeals court that looked at the question recognized the obvious: The Constitution doesn't set a minimum time period, and courts shouldn't make one up. In addition, two other presidents--Harry S. Truman and Theodore Roosevelt--have made appointments during recess of three days or shorter. Legal and historical precedent are both on President Obama's side. This board also invalidated some 285 other recess appointments made under similar circumstances over the last few hundred years.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14575856744547292492&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Just because one federal court puts forth an opinion doesn't mean it's the end. Since there is an obvious conflict between federal courts, it will likely go to the Supreme Court, and only then will we have a ruling.
Regarding your irrelevant comment about the President not enforcing laws passed by congress that are obviously not constitutional, please read the following:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
In short, it states that the President is bound by the Constitution first and above all. If Congress passes legislation that the President believes to be contrary to the Constitution, it is within is right, and also has legal precedent ( see Myers v. United States ) to refuse to enforce a law which he finds in good faith, to be in violation of the Constitution. The Protection of Marriage act, which specifically targets homosexuals, treating them as a sub-class of citizen, has failed to pass legal muster multiple times because it presents no valid argument where the interests of the government are served by preventing homosexual couples from being granted a civil license. The entire basis of that argument is based on the fact that it is contrary to the religious beliefs of the Christian faith. A clear violation of the Separation of Church and state. This case too, will properly go before the Supreme court since multiple federal courts have disagreed on this topic as well.
Lastly, regarding your suggestion that he is 'ignoring' the immigration laws, you are misinformed. He is concentrating limited funds on dangerous and or criminal illegals first. Wasting taxpayer money on non-offenders, when we can effectively prosecute and deport dangerous illegals. Which would you rather have addressed first?
You should be aware that we do indeed have multiple federal courts, and when they disagree, the issue is typically decided by the supreme court, either by SCOTUS approving or rejecting a courts decision, or simply letting one of the federal courts decisions to stand.
Ahhh...
There we go with the "OBSTRUCTION" word again...
I'll say again...
You liberals really need to try to "not use" that word--just for sh**** and giggles- to see if you can....
It's so OVERUSED, like a bad song they keep playing on the radio, over, and over, and over, and over,
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
DJ,
I repeat. The court has spoken and Obama has been found to have broken the law. Not sure what part of that you do not understand, but the law is the law and has been ruled upon by this court.
Your mindset is probably what got Barack in trouble in the first place. Namely, "I am Barack, therefore the law does not apply to me." Sorry man. But Obama broke the law on this one. It should not be an impeachable offense which is nice given that the last Democrat POTUS we had WAS impeached. That would be a bummer if we had back to back Dem POTUS impeached....or disbarred for that matter.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
I know it's hard to understand things sometimes DJ, so I'll type this slowly. You would have to go back and research all the past appts. to see if they were made during full recess or pro forma recess as in this case. If any were made during a pro forma recess, then yes they would be unconstitutional. All others would be legal.
@ DJ... some nice posts there. Nice work.
To all of the GOP sycophants...I'm curious as to exactly when the repugnican position espoused by Boy George ("Every nominee desrves an up-or-down vote") changed. Was it, coincidentally, the day our current president took office? You 'pugs are such pathetic hypocites. I can't help noticing that the rules seem to change as your guys get bounced.
@ tobnpr
Seek help,dude. Your shrill whines about dems talking about obstructing is a lot like an abusive husband who's whining because his wife keeps complaining about beatings. Wow...I can see why you love teabagging. That damned liberal stuff just requires too much thinking and logic. Facts are suck pesky, troublesome things. How's the sunset look from your window, fella?
impeach this ass obama......for lying under oath...
Thomas,
The court has ruled that Obama broke the law and by-passed the Constitution. This is about the current POTUS. Bush is out of politics and has been for many years.
Obama was found to have broken the law. I suggest you get used to these types of decisons as surely there are more to come given his penchant for side stepping the Constitution.
To be clear: The court has spoken. Accept it.
Sure, the courts have spoken. Just like how they ruled that the ACA is, in fact, constitutional. Funny how you seem to support one and not the other. (Btw, this was an appellate court that ruled. It is not "final" until the Supreme Court has made its decision).
Mr. Anon,
I accept the Supreme Courts ruling on Obamacare. I dsagree with it, think the policy is horrible and has been a big reason the economy is still mired. It is also clear Obama lied about what was in it and that it was not a tax. That being said, the SCOTUS ruled and it is the law of the land.
The court has also ruled on the on the Constitutionallity of Obamas latest end around the Constitution. Sorry, but as of now he broke the law.
Yup they are still mad about the election!! GOP saw something got done and they want to stop that lololololol
Not even your "wonderful leader" Barak is allowed to VIOLATE Our Constitution.
That is how the U.S. differs from North Korea......
Did you get to be a "Pissedoffperson" because you "progressives" are not allowed to break our laws?
Comments supporting the Presdient are right on the money. How dare the foiul Republicans oppose our President. The courts better be careful, or the Presdient will dispose of them.
Mr. Obama says he can't get anything done in the Oval Office.....(lack of LEADERSHIP)
So he reverts to his Executive Orders, has his Progressive Cabinet members promulate MORE regulations, or just wait until the United Nations gets their agenda (mirroring Obamas) voted on.
Therefore, no reason for Congress nor the SCOTUS.
Thought your vote counted ? Think again.
He is dangerous. Only his brainwashed followers do not see it. Cannot see it.
Pop quiz: how many executive orders has Obama signed, and how many did his predecessors sign?
Anon -
Academic, as other presidents did not use executive orders just because Congress would not let him have their own way. By the way, if Obama tries to ban any type of gun or magazine through executive order (in effect, dictating a law), he needs to be brought up on charges of treason. The ability to write laws rests solely on the Congress, not in the presidency. And the reason I say treason charges is because he is showing a flagrant disregard of his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States, evidencd by his unlawful appointments and picking and choosing which laws he will enforce, on top of giving aid and support to an enemy of this country (giving high tech weapons to the alQaida-backed Muslim Brotherhood and allowing Ambassador Stevens tobe sodomized and killed for political gain is actually treason). There is a pattern to his behavior and liberals are in denial or blind if they can't see that.
King Baby's ego just can't handle this. He is basically just going to ignore the other two branches of govt!
You will find him on the golf course again this weekend, with Beyonce so she can teach him to say things without speaking.
Pop Quiz: how many rounds of golf did Reagan and the Bushes play during each of their Presidencies?
Less than Obama by a long shot!
The CPA needs to be shut down...NOW...as well as most of the other alphabet soup agencies...NOW...
dee ten
How about the FBI? CIA? No wait...I have ONE that needs to be Shut down...AGAIN
...........G O P....... Now that would help WE THE PEOPLE. I guess I'll just have to wait until 2014.
The most transparent aspect of Obama's administration is Jay Carney. What a moron, The court ruled on the NLRB appointments not the CGPB. Jay may wish that the the mainstream American public is as simple minded as his lame attempts to redirect the conversation to an unrelated appointment, but it really isn't true. Wait, maybe it is because BO got re-elected. Glad we have the courts looking after the law.
Today the Constitution WON over our "would be dictator" comrade Barak!
A federal appeals court has unanimously slapped down President Barack Obama’s unprecedented claim that he can decide when the Senate is in session.
“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” said the three-judge decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle.
The decision bolsters a series of GOP complaints that Obama is refusing to enforce laws that he does not like. For example, he has declined to enforce numerous immigration laws and a pro-marriage law.
Too bad the Constitution doesn't force him to enforce the laws on the books already.
The man picks and chooses what HE believes are just laws to uphold, and ignores the rest...
Like the LAW Congress passed to secure our border, YEARS ago....
But hey, gotta keep those illegals flowing in to bolster his base!!!!!!!!!!
Glad the constitution is being upheld. The courts need to check on others to see which others may be unconstitional. Mr O simply can't keep on passing new laws and etc just to benefit himself.
Bottom line...The Republicans want to be able to protect their wealthy donors without anyone watching out for the Consumer... They want to be able to screw the consumer as much as they can... Deregulation "Let us screw over the consumer as much as we can get away with." We can justify a certain amount of litigation against any governing body as the cost of doing business... " lets sue as long as it is a good investment, as long as it doesn't cut into our profits, we can delay, and delay the regulations taking effect long enough to squeeze every nickel out of the market". Just be sure to protect ourselves when our product kills people, so they can't sue us out of our profits". That is the bottom line...
Bottom line..... Baral VIOLATED the Constitution!
A federal appeals court has unanimously slapped down President Barack Obama’s unprecedented claim that he can decide when the Senate is in session.
“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” said the three-judge decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle.
The decision bolsters a series of GOP complaints that Obama is refusing to enforce laws that he does not like. For example, he has declined to enforce numerous immigration laws and a pro-marriage law.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Election's over, lib...
Preach to some other idiot that believes your crap.
"WEALTHY DONORS"????
YOU MEAN THE HOLLYWOOD STARS THAT OBAMA SUCKS UP TO?
Like Morgan Freeman that coughed up a MILLION BUCKS???
Like George Soros?
You're an idiot...
Dear Tim,
Thank you for volunteering that you are a low information voter.
Sincerely,
Smart People
anyone who voted for obama is a low-information voter awash in delusion and naivete........impeach obama
Since Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have a new handshake agreement on confirmations, Harry should be able to zip permanent confirmations through the process. Right Harry? Isn't that what the handshake was all about? But, if you did it in the dark, maybe that wasn't his hand you were shaking. Give it a try and see what happens.
Gee, if the president had decided to work with the opposition instead of try and destroy them then maybe he would get some of what he wants....oh but that's the issue. He doesn't want some of what he wants he wants ALL of what he wants and doesn't feel he owes the Constitution or the elected Congress any consideration. Unfortunately for him there is something call the courts who have the sole responsibility to check both the President and Congress when they try and step out of bounds.
Maybe someone should check to see if he actually attended any of his classes while he was becoming a Constitutional Law Professor?
We have no proof that he was even registered in those classes except that he and his cronies and worshippers say he did. And if he did, he probable was so drugged up high that he can't remember them anyway.
Tammy
Your HATE is showing...typical of a TEABAGGER!
Why is Barak hiding his college records?
The fact of the matter is that it does not matter what Obamas grades were in college. That being said, he is clearly an incompetent POTUS and deserves an "F" for his performance. Just look at the numbers and his record.
Constitutional protections protect ALL of our rights and not just those one side or the other agrees with. That is why it is important to protect the Second Amendment as much as the first because if one goes so can the other.
Nothing will be settled until the SCOTUS rules and they are as likely to overturn the lower court as not, so this is really just a step on the road to a final ruling and not significant in itself.
Then why did the court go to the time and expense to adjudicate it???? If there opinion really does not count? Funny how you are looking at it. I bet you voted for the fraud in the White House, didn't you?
Significant to the extent that the WH has not yet filed an appeal to my knowledge.
Maybe with this ruling, we can start getting something done? Come on Prez, be a leader to USA and quit trying to dictate what you want. Your job is an important one and it would be nice if you would start doing this the correct way. Go thru the channels and be a leader to solve our problems instead of just doing it your way. PLEASE. Every group is fighting right now. I don't think there are any one group that you haven't paired against another one. I'm tired of this whole country is in turmoil. Can you PLEASE take a breath, relax, and work on the issues together with everyone.
Wow this heading says it all, why don't you look at the other sites and see what they are calling it for what it is! Maybe now you will move a little more to the center where the rest of the USA might find you worth listening to.
Funny how MSNBC titled this piece. Funny how a "constitutional expert" could do something so unconstitutional. Funny how Baghdad Bob tried to couch the decision as a narrow one and not applicable elsewhere, when it clearly says that the President cannot determine when Congress is or is not in session. Funny how this president has done end-runs around the constitution his whole term, and, yet, because he is Black or a Liberal, or whatever, we, the People, are not supposed to take offense. And what is really funny is how, as time goes by, we, the People, will finally wake up and realize what a fraud and phony we have in the White House. And we, the People, will act accordingly.
Not to worry all buckwheat has to do is make and executive order to null the court decision. He won't even break a sweat or break a nail. There, the pen is mightier then the sword.
Don't give him any ideas!
Especially as Boehner has yet to grow a pair and initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
Reread that OATH MR. PRES understand your serving the PEOPLE.
Ridiculous leadership.....
This ruling will be reversed on appeal.
The issue is whether pro forma sessions of the Senate in which there not enough Senators to actually conduct business counts as the Senate being in session and not in recess.
The Republicans are trying to obstruct Obama's appointments, but the President has the constitutional authority to make recess appointments. The Executive Branch is testing this ambiguity in the courts.
What makes this different from when Harry Reid had pro forma sessions during the Bush Administration?
Actualy Obama didnt appoint any of those three. Harry Reid came up with the idea to keep Bush from doing it. It worked Bush didnt try to sneak anybody in while the Senate was legaly in session. For some reason Obama thinks hes a King or dictator and can do as he pleases and he might be right the Suprme Court may rule in his favor. However if the Senate says its legaly in session then it would be unconstitutional for Obama to say they are not legaly in session. Of course we have witnessed this Supreme Court changing the law already so its possible that it will be overturned.
There's that "Obstruct" word again!
If I only had a nickle for every time you libtards use that word, I could retire early.
I think, I'll start counting, just for the hell of it...
Re-Elect; Article 1 Section 5 Paragraph 1 covers pro-forma sessions "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."
As for meeting every 3 days that is covered too in Paragraph 4 of Section 5 "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." In fact if you read carefully you will see that the Senate CAN'T adjourn for more than 3 days with out the approval of the House and vice versa.
The recess appointments were set up for when congress was not in session not simply adjourned. An example of not in session woud be that period of time after the end of the 111th Congress but before the start of the 112th Congress. Get the difference?
i say obstruct this ass obama at every turn.........he has done enough damage to our nation...he is a poison pill..
The most amazing thing about the comments above is the lack of knowledge they display about the history of the presidency and the potential impact of this ruling. At least a few people have it right, but not most. You figure out who knows what they are talking about; do some research, if you know how.
Agreed.
Maybe the DC School District is right in dropping Social Studies from the curriculum. They didn't teach anything about how the Gov't operates to begin with. Just look at the people here that have no clue.
How dare the courts challenge the supreme leader, King Obama.
I hope your comment was one of sarcasm. ie King Obama???
All this is, is 1 step. Until all the appeals are exhausted, what ever the last one is, stands. We seen this during Obama's healthcare going through the courts. Each week you heard a court rule the opposite of the last. Until it made it to the Supreme Court, the decision was final. The next court will most likely find in favor of Obama's appointments. Does not matter until the Supreme Court hears it.
But for now Obama has been to be have found to have broken the law. In other words, a crook.
and a liar who lied under oath when he swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states...impeach him.....
Him being a liar goes without saying...my bad
Great news indeed!! Dickie Trumpka must be wasting away not being able to keep his forth dinner down. After having been in three unions (I speak for and negotiate for myself now based on skills and knowledge instead of seniority and how fast you can chug a six pack at lunch), I avoid products and services from union run companies whenever possible.