Court finds Obama recess appointments to NLRB unconstitutional

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis similarly applauded Obama for making the NLRB appointments and said that had he not done so, Republicans would have continued blocking the nominees to the detriment of the economy.

"We can't afford to not move on very important issues that affect working class people, and particularly working Americans that are struggling right now," Solis said during a Wednesday conference call with reporters. "We need to know there's a sense of security and ... that we honor the ability to collectively bargain."

In a statement explaining his decision, the president said that "the American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day - whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans. We can't wait to act to strengthen the economy and restore security for our middle class and those trying to get in it.

[....the president said that "the American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day...

Kinda like the how the Senate knowingly attempted to bypass the rule established by the constitution in which they're supposed to either approve or reject such appointments, rather than knowingly & purposefully avoiding doing its job?

I agree .. and still waiting for these "qualified" publc servants" .. so far what he has appointed in too many cases are anything but qualified ..i.e. unless you think a tax cheat is "qualified" to head up the IRS etc. etc. etc.

So you agree that based on this evidence, Obama knew what he was doing and did it intentionally?

Pretty ironic that the one you choose to use as an example of "unqualified" is one that was actually approved by the Senate..

Not "Ironic" at all .. especially considering who controlled the Senate at the time. althoufgh it doesn't surprise me a bit YOU would think so.

More like .. Just Par for the course.

....

Should I consider your selective answering of my post to be par for the course as well?

No ... you shouldn't.

Consider it not having time or inclination to put in the time required to get exact names and post examples of them not being qualified. Anyone with any sense knows I am not alking everyone and knows exactly who I am talking about. Just like the Tax cheat as head of the IRS. .

Huh? We're not talking about people who have *already* been confirmed by the Senate. We're talking about the ones who have not due to senate refusal to have an up-an-down vote on them.

So what evidence do you have that any of those nominees are "unqualified"?

Kinda like the how the Senate knowingly attempted to bypass the rule established by the constitution in which they're supposed to either approve or reject such appointments, rather than knowingly & purposefully avoiding doing its job?

Congress should have exercised their constitutional right by actually reviewing the candidates and deciding to approve them or not. Not by playing childish games like "we're here, but we're not really 'here'".

According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution the Executive is to have "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" when appointing important positions in the government.

It is the Presidents problem and not the Senate.

Government does not have rights. They have duties and powers.

Here the Executive (President) has the duty not the Senate. The Senate has the power to approve the candidates, but not the duty.

And if the Senate refuses to provide that "advice" and gives neither consent or rejection?

If it's the President's problem, then is it any wonder that he attempted to come up with a solution?

According to that logic, the President has the power to secure the borders, but not the duty. Sound just as convincing?

Yes, and he just got his hand slapped for his "solution." A better idea might be to appoint a candidate that will get 60 votes.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Legislature the power "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Article 2, Section 1, by oath, gives the President the duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."