• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Buckwheat Appointments Are Illegal

Mike

Well-known member
A federal appeals court has overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, arguing he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.
The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.
“The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote. “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/#ixzz2J0SCuSEx
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

Steve

Well-known member
just the first case of many that challenges the kings power... yet the progressives can only say.. but Bush did it to...

somehow I doubt that is a sound legal argument the courts listen to :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Why hasn't fatboy shown up to tell us how many recess appointments Bush made?

Not that that would have squat to do with this issue, but still.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.

<crickets>

:roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
A "Scathing" opinion. Talk about "Biatchslapped"!!!!!!!

Thought he was a "Constitutional" Law professor?

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled today that if the word “the” in the U.S. Constitution carries its customary meaning—which the court forcefully affirmed it does—than President Barack Obama violated the Constitution and usurped power from Congress by appointing persons to federal office without securing the constitutionally required consent of the Senate.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama unilaterally named three people to the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB). The Senate—by a unanimous agreement of all 100 senators—had said that it was in fact still in session that day and not in the recess.

Yet despite the Senate’s unanimous declaration that it was in session, Obama unilaterally determined the Senate was in fact in “recess” on Jan. 4, 2012 and that he could therefore use the Constitution’s recess appointment power to directly appoint his three choices to the five-member National Labor Relations Board, thus denying the Senate its constitutional power to confirm or reject them.

Obama’s action was challenged in federal court by Noel Canning, a Pepsi distributor. The company argued that when the NRLB ruled against it in a dispute decided in February 2012, the board did not have its legally-required quorum of three members because Obama’s three recess appointments were not constitutional.

Three key passages in the Constitution governed the case.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 says: “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.”

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 says: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”

In an amicus brief submitted to the court, Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation argued that because the Constitution gives the House and Senate sole power to set their own rules of proceedings, Obama has no power to say when the Senate is in or out of session.

“The President improperly arrogated to himself the power to declare the constitutional significance of the Senate’s proceedings, notwithstanding the prerogative to make its own rules,” Landmark told the court.

If, as the Obama administration argued to the court, Obama could unilaterally determine when the Senate was in session and when it was not for purposes of making recess appointments, than the Senate’s power to confirm federal officials was meaningless.

“Indeed, if the president has the power to determine for himself when the Senate is in recess, he can declare it in recess on a whim, during any lunch break, weekend, or even when he believes that the Senators’ debate has stalled and they are not working efficiently and effectively as a body,” Landmark said in its brief.

So, did the court believe the president could declare the Senate in recess every weekend the members went home—or any time they broke for lunch?

In his opinion, Chief Judge David Sentelle systematically analyzed the actual constitutional language in question and what it meant to the Framers.

He pointed to the obvious: The Constitution did not talk about “recesses,” but about “the Recess.”

“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,” wrote Judge Sentelle.

“Then, as now, the word ‘the’ was and is a definite article. See 2 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 2041 (1755) (defining 'the' as an 'article noting a particular thing' (emphasis added)),” said the judge. “Unlike ‘a’ or ‘an,’ that definite article suggests specificity. As a matter of cold, unadorned logic, it makes no sense to adopt the [National Labor Relations] Board’s proposition that when the Framers said ‘the Recess,’ what they really meant was ‘a recess.’ This is not an insignificant distinction. In the end it makes all the difference.”

“All this points to the inescapable conclusion that the Framers intended something specific by the term ‘the Recess,’ and that it was something different than a generic break in proceedings,” wrote Sentelle.

“Again, the Framers have created a dichotomy,” Judge Sentelle said. “The appointment may be made in ‘the Recess,’ but it ends at the end of the next ‘Session.’ The natural interpretation of the Clause is that the Constitution is noting a difference between “the Recess” and the ‘Session.’ Either the Senate is in session, or it is in the recess. If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess.’

“It is universally accepted that ‘Session’ here refers to the usually two or sometimes three sessions per Congress,” wrote the judge. “Therefore, ‘the Recess’ should be taken to mean only times when the Senate is not in one of those sessions.”

Judge Sentelle gave examples of statements and actions by the Framers that demonstrated this was the case. He then explained that when the Recess Appointment Clause says that presidents may fill up “vacancies that may happen during the Recess” it means exactly that—namely that if a vacancy happens “during the Recess” the president may fill it with a recess appointment made “during the Recess” without a Senate confirmation vote, and that person may serve only until the end of the next "session."

A vacancy that does not happen “during the Recess” cannot be filled by a recess appointment, said the judge.

In the case of Obama’s three NRLB appointments, the vacancies Obama sought to fill happened while the Senate was in session and Obama unilaterally appointed his people to those vacancies while the Senate was in session.

Thus Obama violated the Constitution on both scores as he usurped the Senate’s power to consent to the appointment of federal officials.

“As discussed above, the appointments structure would have been turned upside down if the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch,” Judge Sentelle wrote in a passage echoing the Landmark Legal Foundation's brief.

“Not only logic and language, but also constitutional history supports the interpretation advanced by Noel Canning, not that of the Board,” concluded the judge.

“We’re very pleased that the court agreed with our position that no president is above the law,” said Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin. “The Senate was meeting in pro forma sessions every three days when President Obama announced his appointments. They even conducted business during those sessions. This president doesn’t get to tear up and toss aside the Constitution just because he disagrees with the limitations it imposes on him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This will end up at the SCOTUS- and this is once I would like to see them "legislate" from the bench (altho I expect they won't)...


But since both the D's and R's in the Senate over the last several years have shown they can't throw out their partisan games and confirm positions that are vital to functioning of government-and only one Senator can filibuster appointments and hold the Administration at hostage- I would love to see the Justices put a 30 or 60 day time period on when the Senate would have to bring each of these appointments to a YES or NO vote- or the appointee automatically is considered confirmed.......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
This will end up at the SCOTUS- and this is once I would like to see them "legislate" from the bench (altho I expect they won't)...


But since both the D's and R's in the Senate over the last several years have shown they can't throw out their partisan games and confirm positions that are vital to functioning of government-and only one Senator can filibuster appointments and hold the Administration at hostage- I would love to see the Justices put a 30 or 60 day time period on when the Senate would have to bring each of these appointments to a YES or NO vote- or the appointee automatically is considered confirmed.......

Don't change the subject dick-head. Buckwheat Lied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama unilaterally named three people to the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB). The Senate—by a unanimous agreement of all 100 senators—had said that it was in fact still in session that day and not in the recess.

Yet despite the Senate’s unanimous declaration that it was in session, Obama unilaterally determined the Senate was in fact in “recess” on Jan. 4, 2012 and that he could therefore use the Constitution’s recess appointment power to directly appoint his three choices to the five-member National Labor Relations Board, thus denying the Senate its constitutional power to confirm or reject them.
 

Mike

Well-known member
This abuse by Buckwheat has set off a firestorm in D.C. over rules & regs implemented by several "Illegal" appointments in some other agencies.

Hundreds, if not thousands of lawsuits are about to happen pertaining to his wrongful appointments.

:lol:
“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” said the three-judge decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Obama swore to uphold the US Constitution and he lied to take power away from another branch of government to appoint his crooks. He is not a friggin King and he has rules to govern by. If he is the so called Constitutional Professor he CLAIMES to be he had to have known he was over stepping. If those Senators, all 100 that unamiously claimed to be "in session" had any balls they would take back their power and impeach that slime ball. :mad:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
This will end up at the SCOTUS- and this is once I would like to see them "legislate" from the bench (altho I expect they won't)...


But since both the D's and R's in the Senate over the last several years have shown they can't throw out their partisan games and confirm positions that are vital to functioning of government-and only one Senator can filibuster appointments and hold the Administration at hostage- I would love to see the Justices put a 30 or 60 day time period on when the Senate would have to bring each of these appointments to a YES or NO vote- or the appointee automatically is considered confirmed.......

did you miss the part in grade school about checks and balances.... ?
 

Steve

Well-known member
The U.S. Constitution requires that the most senior federal officers must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but while the Senate is in recess the President often acts alone by making a recess appointment. To remain in effect a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again;

For example, during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. by not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, blocking a longer adjournment that would allow recess appointments to be made
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
This will end up at the SCOTUS- and this is once I would like to see them "legislate" from the bench (altho I expect they won't)...


But since both the D's and R's in the Senate over the last several years have shown they can't throw out their partisan games and confirm positions that are vital to functioning of government-and only one Senator can filibuster appointments and hold the Administration at hostage- I would love to see the Justices put a 30 or 60 day time period on when the Senate would have to bring each of these appointments to a YES or NO vote- or the appointee automatically is considered confirmed.......

Don't change the subject dick-head. Buckwheat Lied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama unilaterally named three people to the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB). The Senate—by a unanimous agreement of all 100 senators—had said that it was in fact still in session that day and not in the recess.

Yet despite the Senate’s unanimous declaration that it was in session, Obama unilaterally determined the Senate was in fact in “recess” on Jan. 4, 2012 and that he could therefore use the Constitution’s recess appointment power to directly appoint his three choices to the five-member National Labor Relations Board, thus denying the Senate its constitutional power to confirm or reject them.

I think it's safe to say that we now have an imperial president. From here forward I shall call him, King Obama.
 
Top