Skip to comments.HIGH COURT LIMITS PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENTS POWER
Posted on 06/26/2014 7:06:44 AM PDT by navysealdad
click here to read article
I don’t disagree. Sad when it’s come to the point where it’s even a possibility you’re about to lose your freedom of religion.
Let them enforce it.
Obama will ignore it.
Exactly. He knows they can’t enforce it, so he’s just laughing at this decision.
The Hobby Lobby decision will come Monday.
Say anything you want about it ... it’s a ruling nonetheless and it was ignored. The precedent is there.
I agree that Reid will take immediate action to nuclear option the rest of [non-judicial] appts.
But I think he’ll consider it well. Any change will carry over to republican control eventually. He risks a lot by giving Rs the power he is desiring.
He may do it then change it back. That would be fun to watch. Everything he does helps the Tea Party and damages the GOPE.
That’s a good question. I approach it from the opposite angle though: where in the Constitution does it forbid states from seceding? Because remember, at least the way it was originally written, the Constitution said “other than the powers enumerated herein, all rights are hereby reserved to the states, and the people” (paraphrased from memory)
So to me, that seems like there would need to be an amendment to the Constitution, at least at the time of the Civil War, that explicitly prohibited states from seceding from the Union, to make it “unconstitutional”. Otherwise that right is reserved for the states and the people.
Again I don’t know I’m no Constitutional scholar. Maybe we should ask Obama this question. < /sarc >
You are right, the courses cannot enforce the limits on the presidential appointments, but neither can the President enforce regulatory power of the illegitimate appointee.
I’m not a supporter of these particular Freepers, but I’ll warn you ... they’ll call you an idiot for not going along with them ... :-) ...
The Hobby Lobby decision will come Monday.
The actions against a self-declared “nation” which declared that the Constitution did not apply to them are not by definition unconstitutional. The court of that time took no further actions nor did the congress or anyone else take any active actions to force Lincoln to withdraw anything.
He did not allow the confederacy and their SC sympathizers to have it both ways; to ignore the Constitution yet demand it be applied to them.
I’ve been called names by idiots like secessionists in the past; doesn’t bother me. Not enough to convince me to follow them down the rabbit hole to hell and failure.
If the GOP takes over the Senate, my fear is that they will rescind the nuclear option.
The US Supreme Court decision that Lincoln ignored didn’t say secession was Unconstitutional. I don’t believe I said that.
I guess my point would be that the Presidents do whatever they can “get away with” - to the extent of whether someone can actually stop them or not.
You have it upside down. The Constitution only authorizes the federal government to do certain things. Everything else is a power of the States, or the right of the people.
Governments have powers. People have rights.
I used to think it was cowardice but am now inclined to think of it as complicity.
Yeah that would embolden TEA Party and discourage GOPE. The "see, I told you so" thing.
“A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the Presidents recess-appointment power. Moreover, the Court has not found a single example of a recess appointment made during an intra-session recess that was shorter than 10 days. There are a few examples of inter-session recess appointments made during recesses of less than 10 days, but these are anomalies. In light of historical practice, a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause...
...The broader interpretation ensures that offices needing to be filled can be filled. It does raise a danger that the President may attempt to use the recess-appointment power to circumvent the Senates advice and consent role. But the narrower interpretation risks undermining constitutionally conferred powers more seriously and more often. It would prevent a President from making any recess appointment to fill a vacancy that arose before a recess, no matter who the official, how dire the need, how uncontroversial the appointment, and how late in the session the office fell vacant.
Historical practice also strongly favors the broader interpretation. The tradition of applying the Clause to pre-recess vacancies dates at least to President Madison...”
Overall, I think this is a reasonable opinion.
That would be horrible. But it would play directly into the hands of TEA Party candidates. It would be like a vote for 0bamacare. If he were to change back, it should be only after we'd put in as many nominees under it as they had - or something similar.
But to just change it back would so play into the next elections - in 2 years.
So, what does this mean for the appointees?
Are they now unemployed?
Will they have to go thru re-screening process in the Senate?
What about any rules or regulations they have signed?
Are they now illegal?..................
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.
Their broad reading says the president doesn't really have to get the advice and consent of the Senate.
The only real sticking point is the decisions that they have been made by the board with illegal members. No doubt, they will have to reissue those decisions to avoid legal suits. There may still be lawsuits if people have suffered damages due to the prior board decisions.
Boy do you ever have that one correct. The FEDS are nothing unless the rights were granted to them by the Constitution and passed by the STATES.
So, really, it’s just a matter of paper shuffling.........................
No doubt Reid anticipated the decision hence the nuclear option. The Reps weak response may trigger a nuclear option for all legislation in addition to confirmations. And Reid may expand the confirmations to include those to SCOTUS.
In reading (major) past decisions, I’ve found that many were consistent with the overall public mood at the time. Today, the mood is that government power is overreaching. Roberts is said to monitor public mood because he is concerned about the court’s image. I don’t know if that is true, but it sure seemed that way in NFIB v. Sebelius.
The Dems will scream bloody murder if and when the (R) ever use the nuclear option on them.....................
Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury’s commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.
Unfortunately a constitution is only as good as the people who swear to uphold it, it is extremely rare for someone who takes that oath to live by it. They rarely are as openly defiant as President Jackson, they simply pretend to think, or in some cases maybe they actually do think that it means something entirely different from what it plainly says. In many cases those who are the most blatant in disregarding the original intent are those who serve on the courts, including all too often the supreme court. Then we have the problem of all too many voters who seem to believe that “shall not be infringed” actually means SHALL be infringed in any way that sounds good to me. Many voters also actually seem to believe in the fairy tale of the “right to privacy” which guarantees a woman “the right to choose” even though they are too squeamish to admit what she is choosing but the same people can’t find a right to any other kind of privacy even in the fourth amendment which is almost totally disregarded in many cases now.
In short “we the people” are not living up to the constitution. We have listened to those who sing the praises of “Democracy” when they should be condemning the evils of real democracy and praising a constitutional republic. The end result is that we now have a de facto democracy even though we may still have supposedly a de jure republic and we are learning anew that an actual democracy is a very BAD form of government.
I fully expect someone to come back and argue that republic and democracy are the same form of government and I am just “arguing semantics”, no problem, I know better and many others do as well. The link below is offered to those actually care about reality.
Yes, it was Jackson, after the Cherokees had won in the SCOTUS re being ‘relocated.”
then came the “Trail of Tears”
Regardless of one’s opinion on secession, the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
This is the reason a Boehner lawsuit is not a bad idea. The court has had enough of obammy. He has offended them as well, and they would work with a lawsuit. Harry Reid will never let obammy be impeached and removed... but the court may find him guilty of crimes.
‘But knowing these clowns at the 1600 Penn Ave, they will ignore the Supreme Court and their media henchmen will applaud it.’
You are probably right but in essence if Obozo tries this then he will be declaring that his entire administration is operating outside the law. If the MSM applauds it, they will be saying that they are driven by their ideology and not their duty.
Their masks will drop away and all who can see will. I hope they are stupid enough in their arrogance to do this.
“In a ruling that will constrain future presidents,”
Listen to the propaganda. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this the first president who has ever done this.
The first quote was Jackson.
To paraphrase Lincoln “There’s a war on, STFU.”
Watch for some members of the S.C. mysteriously die now, so hussein can replace them with his own henchmen.
And there there is CNN propaganda. Trying to make it sound like what Obama did was same thing that has been being done for years.
Texas has it written into their state constitution - they CAN secede.
Many people are ready to ‘escape’ to Texas should they ever do so. they ARE big enough, and successful enough - and have the ba*ls, to be separate.
AMENDMENT XRead that again. The states delegated specific powers to the Union through the Constitution. All other powers belong to the states.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
All one need do is read the Founding Fathers' writings to understand their intentions. The Constitution was intended to grant limited power to the federal government. What they wanted to prohibit the states from doing, they specifically outlined in the Constitution. They intended all other powers and rights to go to the states and the people.
so youre suggesting that the worst occupier of the oval office in the history of the republic ignore this ruling by the supreme court ?
and you find that amusing ?
The important issue is does this SCOTUS decision *invalidate* all the decisions the NLRB made with its improper appointees? Unless it does, this is all for naught.
He’s already doing it, so nothing has changed. AND ... the precedent is there for Presidents to ignore the US Supreme Court.
I figure the worse Obama is, the better it is for us the next time around, because the more upset people will be about it.
Let the tanks roll, no issue with a Military coup at this point.
Obama later withdrew the nominations of the two whom he illegally appointed. He appointed two replacements, who, along with the three previously appointed and awaiting confirmation, were confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2013.
Any decisions made by the board when the two served illegally are null and void. I believe there were some 800 decisions during that time.
Those on the board at this time are there legally and their decisions stand, unless later found specifically unconstitutional.