Court to Obama: What Part of ‘The’ Do You Not Understand?

CNSNews ^ | January 25, 2013 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[Sopater]

[BenLurkin]

“When interpreting a constitutional provision, we must look to the natural meaning of the text as it would have been understood at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.”

[cripplecreek]

The NLRB says they intend to ignore the court ruling.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nlrb-we-will-continue-to-act-despite-the-appeals-court-decision/article/2519736#.UQMDe_JU6vc

[jazusamo]

I saw that right after I posted this article, this is going to get interesting.

Thanks for linking.

[tet68]

Ya hear that Bill Clinton, it all depends on the meaning
of “THE”.

Bwhahahahah.

[nomad]

And they want to take our 2nd amendment? Clueless is the understatement of all time!

[cripplecreek]

The NLRB is certainly proving their union cred with their contempt for the law and constitution.

[Political Junkie Too]

Three key passages in the Constitution governed the case.

Terry,

There is a fourth "key" passage that nobody is talking about.

Article I Section 5 Clause 4:

---

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

---

Everyone is making a big deal about whether the Senate was in recess and whether Obama can decide when the Senate is in recess. However, the Constitution says that the House of Representatives gets to decide when the Senate is in recess, and the House did NOT consent. The House remained in session, forcing the Senate to conduct pro forma sessions.

People need to put more emphasis on the House's role in this. The Senate's pro forma sessions were not a "gimmick" that excuses Obama from acting unconstitutionally

-PJ

[ReaganÜberAlles]

Music to my ears

[jazusamo]

Excellent point that I had forgotten also.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[sergeantdave]

“The NLRB says they intend to ignore the court ruling.”

This is where states need to step forward and declare the NLRB a rogue and illegal organization. They could add some spunk by declaring that any federal bureaucrat or federal judge trying to enforce an illegal NLRB ruling is subject to arrest, fines and imprisonment.

[Mastador1]

How dare they lecture the great and powerful ObamaOZ on the Constitution! Don’t they know that he taught Constitutional law? Note I said he taught it not that he had tiniest understanding of it. Maybe that’s the problem for Obama, he is used to just making sh*t up as he goes along with out question and now some people are calling him on it.

[Mr. Lucky]

The Court distinguished between intra-session adjounments and The inter-session recess. By the Court's logic the appointments would have been void regardless of whether the House had consented to an adjounment.

[cripplecreek]

Personally I think Michigan should step up and declare that they don’t intend to honor the appeals court ruling that overrode the will of the voters on affirmative action until the NLRB complies with the court.

[so_real]

Is it  soup  treason yet?

[jazusamo]

You bet it is and has been for some time.

[Political Junkie Too]

I understand that the court was distinguishing between lunch breaks and the annual recess between semesters of a two-year Congress (or the biannual break between Congresses).

Obama wants the argument to be about the holiday breaks. I'm arguing a point against Obama's argument.

Note that the news stories are only focusing on whether the Senate was in recess or not, as if that's the end of it. If the House was not in recess, the Senate could not constitutionally be in recess. That is what is needed to rebut Obama's small argument.

But I am glad that Landmark argued the Big Argument.

-PJ

[SERKIT]

How DARE that judge question the President! Doesn’t he know that Mr Soetoro was a law instructor specializing in Cloward Piven and he taught the excellent theory that the pesky Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties “?