Skip to comments.Court: Obama Appointments to Labor Panel Are Unconstitutional
Posted on 01/25/2013 9:36:52 AM PST by lbryce
President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.
The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.
The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.
Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic -- as Democrats have in the past as well -- to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews#ixzz2J0bN6V00
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Finally someone has called him out on something.
Now it depends upon which Supreme Court Justice will initially hear the presentation. If it is one of Obama’s libs, (or maybe Roberts himself) they will overturn the ruling. It will then be appealed to the full court and then it is up in the air again. Another year goes by!
This is great news. I have a feeling a lot of these cases will be decided against him in this term. Gives me hope!
Most of what Obama does is unconstitutional, including his run for office.
We’re still waiting for anyone in a position of authority (or the media, hahahahaha!) to give a rat’s *ss.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court works. All cases are heard by the full court. You may be thinking of a request to stay the NLRB ruling (not really necessary here), but if filed, it goes first to the Circuit Justice (Roberts, in this case), but is virtually always ruled on by the whole court, except in literally last-minute, life-or-death situations..
What about the salaries/benefits of these illicit appointees? Are they invalid too? Are appointees obligated to pay back what we, the taxpayer, funded for their illicit positions?
They will probably just declare it a TAX and therefore valid. Its worked before regardless of its relevance.
King Obama is unconstitutional,and so is all of his staff.
When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty - Thomas Jefferson
More proof that the Constitution has outlived its usefulness and needs to be tossed aside. 2016 is just around the corner and it needs to be completely gone by the time THE ONE declares that in the interests of the People, he must become our President for Life.
92) Made recess appointments when Congress was not in recess In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. Recess appointments themselves are constitutional, but only if they are made when Congress is actually in recess.
Still waiting on the court decision regarding Holder’s Fast & Furious and the EO’s.
I'll go it alone,
that's how it must be....
That ended the New Deal and the Democrats took a beating in the next election.
From the article: “GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats have in the past as well — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power.”
IIRC it was Democrats that pioneered the trick to prevent a President, which one I don’t recall, nor who it was they were trying to prevent from being appointed.
As usual it has come full circle, and kicked them in their butts.
Does the Constitution apply to the President? Because I’m sure if Obama knew that he’d have complied. I’m pretty sure that when he took the oath of office swearing to uphold and faithfully execute the Constitution he thought it was only precatory.
So can the Regime take this to the SCOTUS so that Holder can whip out the Roberts with Goats pictures and make this all go away?
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it matter?
That's what we have here. NOTHING will happen to this usurper. NOTHING!
“...THE ONE declares that in the interests of the People, he must become our President for Life.”
I am truly concerned he would try this; with a lot of sheeple demanding it...
what is to stop him from appointing them as new czars?
The younger Bush, and it was to prevent recess appointments of judges.
This ruling goes beyond the appointment during pro forma sessions (a senatorial sham, IMO, to pretend they are "at work" when they aren't, and don't intend to be), by holding that a recess starts when the senate adjourns sine die (it does that exactly one time per year), and ends when the next session is gaveled to order. This ruling also holds that in order for a recess appointment to be valid, the vacancy has to happen, occur, start, begin, during that interval when the senate is in recess.
This ruling, applied to Bush recess appointments, would find them unconstitutional, too.