Skip to comments.Federal appeals court rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional
Posted on 01/25/2013 8:03:48 AM PST by green iguana
A federal appeals court has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit says Obama did not have the power to make recess appointments earlier this year to the National Labor Relations Board.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Any bets on whether this is appealed on not?
Well, it will definitely be appealed, but I think this is a positive sign. Watch for Obama to redouble his attacks on the judiciary.
Will Obama have a national statement & blame everyone except himself?
Even if they appeal this, it’s likely they would lose. This is regarding governmental structure, not some political issue. I doubt even the liberals would agree that the president has the power to just decide that the senate is in recess.
How does one get “standing” to challenge such an appointment in court? Who filed? It clearly wasn’t the DOJ.
Liberals feel that this president has the power to decide anything he wants.
I assume the company that sued lost its case before the trial court, and appealed to the DC Circuit, which has now reversed the trial court.
Guess it's time to find a copy of the decision.
Of course it will be appealed, and of course it is our money that will p[ay for the appeal.
With any luck on Obama’s side this will drone on until he is out of office.
The question is this-— Does anyone actually think any one of those appointments will be canceled?
Next question. With this decision in hand does anyone think that the House will cut off the money to pay those who were appointed illegally?
Next question does anyone believe in the Easter Bunny?
The Kenyan is not going to like this...”who are they to question my edicts”
No appeal. Reason? That would indicate that hussein gives 2 craps about the constitution. He doesn’t. (But flies sure like a hot steamin’ pile of manure when they smell one.)
“Any bets on whether this is appealed on not?”
Time for the bear in the woods picture.
We better send over a contingent of FBI agents to keep tabs on the five members who are inclined to vote yes on the SC.
Send over a food taster too.
Is there an injunction against the ruling while it’s appealed?
Standing. Haha. Good question. “You weren’t individually harmed therefor you have no standing”. Such BS.
In reality, the SC probably won’t decide to hear the case, leaving the DC decision as prevailing opinion on the matter.
How come, when the court finds that Obama expressly and purposefully violated the Constitution, he is not automatically impeached?
That is why Reed got Bohener to cave on the appt issue so that Obama can put more liberal judges on the SC. Th
Ha Ha! was my initial reaction upon hearing this.
If upheld (the most likely outcome) it will invalidate *all* decisions made by the board. It also scotches Richard Cordray appointment to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A double Ha! Ha!
Because the Senate will never convict him.
The court takes a narrow definition of "recess," that undercuts many appointments that have been made, historically.
A third alternative interpretation of "the Recess" is that it means any adjournment of more than three days pursuant to the Adjournments Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, AS: 5, cl. 4 ("Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days . . . ."). This interpretation lacks any constitutional basis. The Framers did not use the word "adjournment" in the Recess Appointments Clause. Instead, they used "the Recess." ...
In short, we hold that "the Recess" is limited to intersession recesses.
This is a MASSIVE change. There is a split among circuits, so SCOTUS might take it up.
The opinion is well reasoned, and I think it is a correct interpretation and application of the recess appointment power expressed in the constitution. Presidents have taken unconstitutional liberties in the face of a dysfunctional senate.