Posted on 02/14/2012 11:45:57 AM PST by american_steve
The 2012 election year has just begun, and already controversies have swirled around a number of President Obama’s actions. Constitutional issues are at the forefront as the president seeks to improve his chances of reelection by delivering on his promises. But is the president violating the Constitution as he tries to implement his program of transformation? Constitutional attorney David Rivkin believes he is. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington D.C. will be facilitating a discussion on one of the recent controversies, President Obama’s “recess appointments.”
On January 4, 2012, President Obama made the following appointments: Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB; and Richard Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, and Terence F. Flynn as members of the NLRB. At the time of the appointments, the Senate was holding a series of "pro forma" sessions. The U.S. Department of Justice claims that the President has the authority to make these appointments, in essence, to decide based on his own analysis about when Congress is in session. David Rivkin and other constitutional law experts disagree.
(Excerpt) Read more at officialwire.com ...
No, the appointments are illegal and should be treated as such.
Had a Republican President done exactly the same thing under the same circumstances, would it have been constitutional? There's your answer.
Just another part of the Constitution President Chavez, I mean Obama, has trashed.
The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says.
Supreme Court Justices generally stay on the bench for 30 years or more. The next president will get to replace at least 2 or 3 them.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I agree. So don't pay them. Who authorizes the pay checks?
No, an unconstitutional president can't make constitutional appointments!
“Who authorizes the pay checks?”
That would be the spineless House led by John “boohoo” Boehner....who has yet to stand up to the Boy King.
So the answer to the original question of whether the appointments were Constitutional is NO. Sadly, the answer to the question of whether the Republicans will do anything about it is also NO!
So long as Congress will not challenge and exert their powers then yes.
Political theater. It seems most of our ‘representatives’ are interested only in scoring points for the next election cycle.
1) Paul Ryan/John Boehner and the debt limit deal which cut virtually no spending.
2) Investigations of Eric holder and the DOJ (Holder should have been impeached already:
- Fast and Furious
- The voter intimidation in Philadelphia
- The illegal firing of a US attorney in California (can’t rember the specifics) because he was investigating Obama’s political appointees and donors.
- lawsuits against any states that enforce their own illegal immigration laws
- others?
Issa has enough for indictments on multiple counts for Fast and Furious. But Issa is only using this to bolster his image in the news ...
3) Obama’s eligibility.
4) Obama’s giving GM to unions, shafting creditors and shareholders, and closing of dealerships based on politics
... and many more
Does it matter anymore? Doesn’t seem to.
The question is moot.
They are there, no one will remove them, no one will punish them or the person who installed them.
There is no constitution.
I wonder in grief why no one has addressed these issues to “preserve and protect” our Constitution. Sure looks like SCOTUS will ride the bench to the bottom.
This is not important. What is important is that Freepers get on FR and declare their intention not to vote for a particular Republican if he is the candidate, because it really doesn’t matter to them which party wins the Presidency if they can’t have their way.
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.