Court strikes down 'Recess Appointment' scheme by Obama

Editor’s Note – As SUA, along with a large amount of other internet sites have been reporting, this Administration has been routinely circumventing the Constitution in so many ways. From Executive Orders, to Signing Statements, selective enforcement of the law, illicit self-proclaimed ‘recess appointments’, and ramming legislation by employing nefarious methods in the Senate and House, the Obama team has constantly run rampant over the will of the people. There hasn’t even been a budget in four years.

Now, finally, the courts have weighed in and declared unanimously that at least one of these end-runs was in fact unconstitutional. Early responses from the administration indicate they are willing to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. This is a legal move of course, but it just goes to show the arrogance of this administration. They lost one, very badly, unanimously,  yet they are going to spend all that time and effort to continue the fight. Why, because they don’t care how they get their way, they will say and do anything.

Unfortunately, the most egregious transgression, PPACA, or ObamaCare was declared ‘valid’ by SCOTUS. A fight not yet over we hope.

This will not be the last loss this administration will endure however as more cases move forward, but the damage has already been done – people and businesses have lost greatly. How do they get their value and names back from the abyss created by appointing people to posts who made gross errors in decisions regarding labor and business?

In its individual circumstance it may seem trivial, but in totality, all these end-runs have amassed a great deal of harm to the people. It is likely getting very busy at Boeing’s law offices now – a likely law suit could cost the tax payers a great deal, so its a double whammy – all from an illegal move through ideologically driven chicanery as practiced by the most anti-constitutional characters ever.

Get ready folks, more is sure to come.

Obama recess appointments unconstitutional, court

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling 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.”

The case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, and it turns on the definition of what the Constitution means when it says “recess.”

Last January Mr. Obama named union lawyer Richard Griffin and Labor Department official Sharon Block, both Democrats, and a Republican, NLRB lawyer Terence Flynn, to the labor board using his recess powers. He also named Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, using those same powers.

Noel Canning, a bottling company, sued the NLRB, arguing that a rule issued by the new board was illegal since the recess appointments were unconstitutional. Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, joined in the suit.

The appeals court panel, which sits in Washington, D.C., was skeptical of Mr. Obama’s case during oral argument in early December, with Chief Judge David B. Sentelle and Judge Thomas B. Griffith peppering the administration lawyers with questions.

The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate judges and executive branch officials, but the Senate must vote to confirm them before they take office. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president powers “to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”

Those powers have produced centuries of give-and-take, with senators regularly slow-walking nominees and the White House looking for ways to get its way — including the recess appointment.

Mr. Obama’s move, though, appeared to break new ground by acting at a time when the Senate was meeting every third day, specifically to deny him the chance to make appointments.

The problem is the word “recess” has several meanings in legislative-speak. It can mean a short break during the day, it can mean a break of days or weeks for a holiday, or it can mean the end of a yearly session.

The president argued that even though the Senate was convening every three days, the pro forma sessions didn’t allow any business, and nearly every senator was absent from the chamber, signaling that the Senate wasn’t able to perform its confirmation duties and should be considered essentially in recess.

His opponents had warned that if Mr. Obama’s stance prevailed, then presidents could make appointments when the Senate takes its recess for weekly party caucus lunches.

The judges on Friday ruled that the only clear bright line is when the Senate recesses at the end of the year.

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Hiding in the ink – Obama and Dems go back on their own words

Editor’s Note – Obama considers himself a Constitutional expert, yet, when it fits his ideals, he is quite anti-constitutional. Like his fellow liberals throughout the last few years at least, their positions are always made for political gain first, and certainly not for the good of the country but they couch it in pretty words to make you think so. They rely on sound bites at critical moments that they know will be parroted by the main stream media, and the fact that the public has a very short memory and is shy to examine details.

When you look at their words from the past, as Scott Johnson at Powerline does below, the President just skips over the facts and employs politically charged speech to hide behind his own ink. In Ohio yesterday, (Remember, Ohio is a huge ‘swing state’ Obama desperately needs to win to get re-elected.) he deftly moved his rhetoric to a position that he knew would feed his supporters and make it difficult to fight against, even if it is totally illegal and anti-constitutional. He said (from WH transcript):

Obama and Cordray in Ohio - The 'swing state' he craves.

And to help us do that, I’m joined by somebody you might recognize — Richard Cordray. (Applause.) Son of Ohio; a good, good man. (Applause.) Today I’m appointing Richard as America’s consumer watchdog. (Applause.) And that means he is going to be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interests of American consumers. Looking out for you. (Applause.)

His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure that you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions. Right away, he’ll start working to make sure millions of Americans are treated fairly by mortgage brokers and payday lenders and debt collectors. In fact, just this week, his agency is opening up a simple 1-800 number that you can call to make sure you’re getting a fair deal on your mortgage, and hold banks and brokers accountable if you’re not. (Applause.)

Now, I nominated Richard for this job last summer, so you may be wondering why am I appointing him today. It would be a good question. (Laughter.) For almost half a year, Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard’s confirmation.

This reminds us of an old quote:

“He that uses many words for explaining any subject, doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.” – John Ray, naturalist (1627-1705).

Of course, all this ink hides what is truly taking place, he is by-passing the Senate because the discussions on that floor would reveal his true intentions – further entrenching his socialist agenda upon our open-market, all under the guise of helping the little guy – the middle class – in his class warfare campaign for re-election. When you understand the details, and getting past the political rhetoric and lies, its very clear – he and his allies will say and do anything to get their way, please read their own words:

That was then, this is now

Power Line

By Scott Johnson

Responding to President Obama’s putative recess appointments yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell distributed the following collection of quotes to provide a little context:

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’ “‘It’s the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee.” (“Officials: White House To Bypass Congress For Bolton Nomination,” The Associated Press, 7/30/05)

OBAMA: A recess appointee is ‘damaged goods… we will have less credibility.’ “To some degree, he’s damaged goods… somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ‘An end run around the Senate and the Constitution.’ “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

REID: ‘They are mischievous.’ “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)

REID: Recess appointments an ‘abuse of power.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)

REID: A recess appointee will have ‘a cloud hanging over his head.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): ‘Troubling.’ “When you have an appointment that is this critical and this sensitive, and the president basically says he’s going to ignore the will of the senate and push someone through, it really is troubling.” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

DURBIN: ‘Could easily be unconstitutional.’ “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Recess appointments an ‘abuse [of] the power of the presidency.’ “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …” (“Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 4/5/07)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “…bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress.” (“President Sends Bolton to U.N.; Bypasses Senate,” The New York Times, 8/2/05)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered…” (“Dem Baucus Joins GOP In Blasting Obama CMS Recess Appointment,” The Hill, 7/7/10)

Several of these quotes arose from Democratic opposition to President Bush’s recess appointment of the great John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations, an appointment which raised none of the legal or constitutional issues that yesterday’s appointments by Obama did. Senator McConnell issued the following statement yesterday afternoon regarding Obama’s “unprecedented” recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board:

“Just hours after he circumvented the American people by ‘recess’ appointing Richard Cordray to the CFPB, the President has upped the ante by making several additional recess appointments, this time to the NLRB. Although all of these appointments potentially raise legal and constitutional questions, the NLRB appointments are particularly egregious. Because the President waited to nominate Sharon Block and Richard Griffin until just two days before the Senate was scheduled to adjourn last month, neither has undergone a single confirmation hearing or a single day of debate by the representatives of the American people. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But what the President did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future President to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress. This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments.”