Skip to comments.President’s “Recess” Appointments Unconstitutional, David Rivkin Testifies
Posted on 02/01/2012 9:04:23 AM PST by american_steve
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA) is set to begin a hearing on the morning of February 1 on President Obama's recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). During the hearing, titled "Uncharted Territory: What are the Consequences of President Obama's Unprecedented 'Recess' Appointments?", constitutional attorney David Rivkin will assert that the appointments are unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at officialwire.com ...
We need a list of the unconstitutional actions taken by this person in the White House and his administration ... per the evaluations of lawyers who specialize in Constitutional Law.
I have to give credit to Darrell Issa, he keeps standing up and bringing out a lot of the BS of this administration even though the press turns a blind eye on it.
Amen! ....and let’s keep him in our prayers.
So?? Do something about it!! Why hasn't anyone sued to overturn?? Lackacajones?? The National Chamber of Commerse was doing some Huffing and Puffing over this...but apparently they chickened out.
The Constitution means nothing to our dictator.
Why would you want to listen to that class of people? It includes Obama.
Funny I give him ZERO CREDIT for doing anything yet. because in the end Nothing Will Happen, this is just a Dog and Pony Show, nothing more, there is not now and never will be any real substance of any kind coming from any of these farces put forth by the Wuss Issa. And I am going to Vegas Friday to put my money where my mouth is, at Ceaser’s Sports Book, I will try to Bet $200 on Holder if they will give me 3 to 1 odds or Better that NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO ANYONE in this Case. I may go for a grand depending on what happens between now and then
Oh man, what would Obama and Hill give/do to get rid of Issa? I hope Issa had great security!
He has little to NO experience of the practice of law....let alone Constitutional Law. His policies and actions all demonstrate a lack of knowledge of law, history, economics, etc..
Thus, he doesn’t qualify.
Be needs to go on record saying the actions of an illegal appointed board need or be flowed since the rules are not legal
He needs to say so to give businesses reason to resost
The President's "functionalist" approach strips this power from Congress, claiming that the President may look past Congress's own descriptions of its actions and determine for himself their legal effect.
Courts have described the circumstances where they, the courts, may look past a deliberative body's misleading characterizations, and thereby determine for itself (the Court) and the people involved in the case, the legal effect.
If I recall correctly, one of these was to look at the records to find evidence of a quorum; even when the records themselves imply that a quorum is in fact present.
If the Court is allowed to look past conclusions asserted by the legislature, into whether or not those conclusions are valid; then I submit that the president has the same power.
Hey! I wasn’t lobbying for the bastard! I was recommending against advice from the entire class of so-called “Constitutional scholars!”
I would disagree with that ...as there are very good Constitutional Law experts. Don’t toss out “the baby with the bath water.”
Unless the baby is named Damien.
Let’s get to the point: Do you honestly believe that EVERY lawyer who has specialized in Constitutional Law is worthless?
Let's do indeed! The folks who wrote the Constitution are the only ones who "specialized in Constitutional Law" who were worth a damn. They wrote it in plain English. It means what it says.
The lawyers who call themselves "Experts" who have made a living obfuscating that simple language are worthless.
You are aware that there ARE originalists in the group I referred to...are you not?
Originalists are not The Originals.
You can read and understand the Constitution! It's THAT good!
Middlemen are not necessary.
Constitutional Lawyers are like the scam artists who feed on little old ladies and charge them fees to fill out forms or subscriptions that they can do for free on their own.
They all suck. Leave the damn thing alone.
“Middlemen are not necessary.”
I am a realist.
“They all suck.”
Isn't that the proper role of the Court, whereas it is not the proper role of the Executive?
They are co-equal branches, and I suspect the Court would punt this one as being a political issue.
Rifkin's argument is that nobody can look past what Congress says it is doing, "see 'may make its own rules'". My point is that the "may make its own rules" protection or barrier is not absolute. A deliberative body that lacks a quorum, and is not making an effort to obtain one (quorum call) is just flat out not in session.
The Court was looking at the legislature's record because a litigant argued, to the court, that the law being enforced was not properly passed.
Not to say that a Court would or wouldn't do similar, if a litigant argues that an unconstitutional appointment resulted in an unconstitutional regulation.
But presidents are allowed to "go against" Congress and the Courts. Conflict between the three branches is inevitable, and which entity is superior varies, depending on the issue.
If Congress is offended deeply enough that the president is disregarding the will of the people, Congress can impeach and remove the president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.