Posted on 01/13/2014 5:28:55 PM PST by servo1969
On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed President Barack Obama’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution during oral arguments over Recess appointments.
The case, National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning, is over whether the president acted legally when he made a series of temporary appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not conducting business but still gavelling in and out every day.
Clause three of the Constitution’s section on presidential powers states that, “The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”
At issue is if the president acted in poor faith by saying the Senate was not in session. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that the Constitution is ambiguous on the subject.
“It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” Scalia replied. After Scalia’s retort, the court room was filled with “oohs” and laughter, Talking Points Memo reports.
Since the National Labor Relations Board conflict, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has broken centuries of tradition by allowing Senate approval for appointments by majority vote, thereby making the case less consequential to Senate procedure.
But if the Supreme Court rules against the White House, the board’s executive actions will no longer be valid.
My understanding is the president presides over the executive branch, which executes the laws delivered up by the legislative branch composed of the House and the Senate.
The Constitution does protect the states from an imperial president who would appoint imperialistic men to make law by fiat against the people. The Constitution instituted “Advise and Consent” by the Senate to all appointments.
I have a feeling Cspan will air the Supreme Court hearing of today, so we can watch and all learn. Hope so. I want to see it. :)
At least there is one Supreme Court justice who didn’t adopt his children illegally from Ireland.
Not video, but perhaps audio.
THE SUMMER OF 2014:
______________________
______________________
Today is the last watershed day for America, because it is the last chance for the US Supreme Court to exercise a Constitutional Check and Balance on the current rogue, tyrannical and oppressive Federal Administration.
Chief Justice John “Traitor” Roberts will probably again refuse to abide with the clear Constitutional Law, and again rewrite the US Constitution to his own liking, in similar manner to what Roberts did with the Constitutionality of the Obamacare Case when he un-Constutionally converted a legal fine into an illegal tax.
Today the US Supreme Court takes up the issue of whether or not an Administration can act without Congressional Approval on matters relating to personnel appointments.
The topic of bypassing the House on approving the spending of taxpayer’s dollars by the Administration will not be considered today, except tangentially, as the appointed personnel will be paid with taxpayer dollars, which would be a bypassing of the Constitutional Control of the Purse by the US House of Representatives.
We taxpayers view this as a clear cut case where we have “Taxation Without Representation” because our Representatives have not been part of the decision-making process.
Examples of a few Imperial matters of record include the following:
* Senator Reid’s Democrats recent voting to turn the US Congress into the US Parliament,
* Boehner’s refusal to appoint House Special Prosecutors for each of the Five Obama Administration Scandals,
* Obama’s four years of Imperial actions, and
* the recent history, ( Traitor Roberts’ Obamacare decision), of the US Supreme Court’s proven reluctance to provide their Constitutional duty of a Check and Balance on the other two Branches of the US Federal Government.
With the usual US Supreme Court private straw vote today that always follows the 30 minute Official Hearing before the Court, America’s future fate will be sealed, and later proclaimed between now and the Summer of 2014.
Either way that the NINE SUPREMES rule on this case, “The Summer of 2014” will prove to be the Summer that decided whether or not our Founding Fathers fought King George the Third of England in vain - - - .
____________________
____________________
THE SUMMER OF 2014.
He does have carte blanche — when the Senate is in recess. In this case, the Senate was still in session.
Really? Cspan did not film today’s hearing?
Write my name down and ping me, if you can, how to hear it.
This one should be 9-0, because it’s super obvious that recess appointments can only be made when Congress is in recess.
We colonists had a real hard time with some of his ministers, people appointed by, and responsible to the king alone.
We were so apprehensive if not fearful over executive power, the Articles of Confederation didn't even provide for one, and during the federal convention in Philly, the delegates wouldn't use the word, "President" until the convention was nearly finished. We knew that power was an intoxicant, and carefully limited the power of the executive.
American ministers and judges were to be responsible to the constitution, not to the person of the president. With a senate looking over his shoulder, and needing its consent, it was less likely the president would appoint cronies, evil men with criminal pasts.
Also unlike king George and his ministers, our president and appointed officers could be impeached and removed from office.
We are very close to what the constitution was designed to prevent, an untouchable kingly president with prerogatives to make law, and make ministers, judges his personal property.
Obama declared the senate to be in recess so as to appoint dirtbags that rightfully were denied consent. This is clearly an impeachable offense.
Fifty years before our revolution, we knew very well the danger of too much power in one man. See Cato's Letters.
Just like the ACA should have clearly been rejected?
If that craptacular ruling is repeated I fully expect a line of reasoning like this:
"Now the Senate is looking for 'moderate' judges, 'mainstream' judges.
What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text?
Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"~Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Address to Chapman University students in 2005
Please click the pic
These appointments are supposed to serve the whole of “We, the People”...not the platform of a political party.
The appoinments would only be temporary anyways.
Right, though with the indirection of the several States, which is why the Senate is involved.
Remember that the original purpose of the Senate [prior the 17th Amendment] was to provide the States themselves representation in the federal government. Because there are things delegated by the States to the federal government that have a profound effect on the States (like treaties) is the reason that the Senate is the one that provides approval/consent. (Each State represented equally, rather than unequally by population if it were the Representatives.)
You are correct. Mark Levine said tonight that the Constitution was designed to prevent the very actions Obama has initiated, by the power of impeachment.
Obama’s power is strengthened by Harry Reid’s totalitarian rule of the senate, which the framers never envisioned, that states would ever voluntarily give up their constitutional state rights, through the nefarious works of state senators and representatives.
He added that the Democrats were no longer a party, but now purified into a philosophical movement— a silent coup in place.
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.
