Court finds Obama recess appointments to NLRB unconstitutional

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

"I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I coulda sworn part of the presidential oath of office states:



yet now his acts are found unconstitutional? hmm... that's like a police officer swearing to uphold the law and willingly going out and breaking the law while on the job.

I coulda sworn part of the presidential oath of office states:



yet now his acts are found unconstitutional? hmm... that's like a police officer swearing to uphold the law and willingly going out and breaking the law while on the job.

You seem to be suggesting that the president either knew or at least believed that the appointments were unconstitutional at the time he made them. If that's the case, do you have any evidence to support such a contention?

the libs and Obama fans keep reminding us how Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor....so YES, he either knew or should have known that has actions are unconstitutional....

he either purposefully violated his oath and should be impeached, or he is a failure and a mediocre (at best) Constitutional Law professor pushed through the system due to his skin color and affirmative action, while complicit academics around him fluffed his ego or were cowards too scared to tell him to his face that he is a moron who knows nothing about the Constitution.

Yep. Because experts on constitutional law never disagree with each other. That's why every scotus case is always decided unanimously.



ETA: Did GWB similarly deserve to be impeached for violating his oath when his plan for indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" was held to be unconstitutional?

I keep remembering how the Constitution has never been interpreted differently by people with an extreme knowledge of it. This is why every supreme court ruling has been unanimous.

Beat by Smeg

good so we agree: Obama is a moron and a mediocre Law "professor" at best, whose uninformed constitutional interpretations are in the minority and based solely on leftist ideology and agenda.

Sure. The senate was meeting every third day with the specific intention of keeping the president from getting his appointments through (thus holding up the government) but Obama is the bad guy for circumventing them.

So that makes it ok? Sounds like to me they're both the "bad guys" but at the same time the Senate didn't violate the Constitution. Obama shouldn't have done what he did, he likely even knew it, and now he's getting his hand slapped for doing it.

Not much else is going on...