Weekly Ad: See Best Buy's new Digital Weekly Ad here! See Deals
Forum Thread

Court finds Obama recess appointments to NLRB unconstitutional (UPDATE: SCOTUS upholds)

Radeck 7,491 251 January 25, 2013 at 09:56 AM
wow...i'm impressed that some judges had the testicles to stand up to the emperor stomping all over the Constitution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/ne...ointments/

Quote :
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.

283 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2007
L10: Grand Master
10,665 Posts
690 Reputation
#2
I coulda sworn part of the presidential oath of office states:

Quote :
"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."
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jul 2006
L0: Not Dead
19,085 Posts
940 Reputation
Moderator
#3
Quote from DJPlayer View Post :
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.
Yep, that's how it works. Any president that does anything later found to be unconstitutional is willfully breaking his oath. :eyeroll:
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If it weren't for electricity, we'd all be watching TV by candlelight.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,689 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#4
Quote from DJPlayer View Post :
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?

Fwiw, police officers get searches thrown out everyday on constitutional grounds. Does that mean that such officers violated their oath?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -- John Morley

"I just helped your mother kill someone. That 'old lady' enough for you?" -- Tara Knowles
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2007
L10: Grand Master
7,491 Posts
251 Reputation
Original Poster
#5
Quote from smegalicious View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Whee Argue Soap Box

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the States, and too much liberty with the Constitution" - Ronald Reagan
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,689 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#6
Quote from Radeck View Post :
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.

Whee Whee Whee

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?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by smegalicious January 25, 2013 at 10:24 AM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2004
L8: Grand Teacher
3,185 Posts
10 Reputation
#7
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 Frown
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2007
L10: Grand Master
7,491 Posts
251 Reputation
Original Poster
#8
Quote from smegalicious View Post :
Yep. Because experts on constitutional law never disagree with each other. That's why every scotus case is always decided unanimously.

Whee Whee Whee

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?
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,689 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#9
Quote from Tony_Danza View Post :
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 Frown
We were unanimous in our sarcasm. Wink
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,689 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#10
Quote from Radeck View Post :
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.
Do we also agree that all scotus decisions (or even federal appeals decisions this like one) are unanimous because constitutional experts never disagree?

Gee, it almost seems like you're trying to avoid that particular point. As if your entire interpretation of events is based on partisan propaganda & agenda rather than a factual analysis of the case at hand (or even of constitutional law in general)... Scratchchin
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#11
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
No matter how helpful the feature, how easy it is to disable, or how good your intentions, someone somewhere will hate it and think you're a monster for implementing it.- Anonymous Developer
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#12
I'll also point out, for the people that say "Obama should have known better". No. Sorry. The language on that section is vague. It says he has the power to make appointments during recess. The president interpreted the fact that congress was meeting every third day (and even on those days most of the senators weren't actually there, and no business could have gotten accomplished) as a recess.

Honestly, I disagree with the courts. Congress was the one being underhanded here, trying to keep the president from making his appointments the regular way.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2004
L10: Grand Master
15,708 Posts
1,202 Reputation
#13
Quote from bridgeburner View Post :
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...
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#14
Quote from LivninSC View Post :
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...

Look at my followup. Obama interpreted vague language in the constitution to suit his needs and circumvent an obstructionist congress. He didn't directly violate the constitution. The fact that the court is ruling after the fact that he did doesn't mean it was intentional.

And yes, I think that makes it ok. I don't see what the president did as wrong. He didn't set out to circumvent congress. He did it after they purposefully prevented him from making his appointments the correct way.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Sep 2006
Greed is Good�
11,363 Posts
339 Reputation
#15
Quote from Radeck View Post :
wow...i'm impressed that some judges had the testicles to stand up to the emperor stomping all over the Constitution.]
So you are advocating for a judge to strike down the PATRIOT Act and close Guantanamo?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 1 of 19
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard