Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Court declares presidential appointments unconstitutional

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Court declares presidential appointments unconstitutional

    RECESS APPOINTMENTS
    The constitution requires that certain appointments made by the president be approved by congress. That is part of the separation of powers, the checks and balances built into the constitution. There is a provision to make appointments when congress is in recess... which allows the president to appoint people to boards for a two yr period without congressional approval when congress is in recess. That keeps things from drawing to a halt when congress is away.

    President Obama, supposedly himself a "constitutional scholar"... could not get some people he wanted to appoint to the National Labor Relations Board approved by congress. So rather than accept the checks provided in the constitution, he said he was appointing them as "recess appointments". Problem is... congress was not in recess.

    In response, congress sued saying the appointments were invalid.

    Wednesday the courts ruled that the faux "recess appointments" were in fact unconstitutional and were invalid from the point at which they were made. That likely vacates all decisions made by that board since that point.

    This is what happens when a president decides he's a fucking king. Obama tries to shred the constitution on a regular basis. This time he got caught. The white house plans to appeal. Basically their argument is pretty much "but gee, congress wasn't getting anything done".

    We have a system of checks and balances that is intended to make our executive, judicial and legislative branches CO-EQUAL branches. The president isnt a monarch. This one seems to forget that.

    RELATED ARTICLE:
    Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional | Fox News
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  2. #2
    Obama was never a constitutional scholar, nor was he a law professor. He was a part-time law school lecturer at the University of Chicago who frequently referred to the US Constitution as a "deeply flawed document." His distain for the rules set forth in The Constitution are exactly what you would expect from someone who wants to be a benevolent dictator.

    Sweet: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor. - Lynn Sweet

    The National Labor relations Board was originally intended to be an objective go-between for business and labor. They are currently so hopelessly biased in favor or unions that there is no objectivity. Last year they proposed forcing businesses to turn over all personal home phone numbers and e-mails for all employees so that unions could contact employees after hours.

    Did you also notice the recent announcement that the TSA successfully negotiated their first union contract? When the TSA was formed, it was supposed to be exempt from unionization, as are all law enforcement agencies at the Federal level. How did this happen? That is just another method to funnel union money to Democrat campaigns.

    I saw some statistics this morning that showed that Obama is now tied with Bush as the most polarizing presidents in US history. I see him taking the lead very soon.

    Poll: Obama's last year ties with Bush for most polarizing ever
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #3
    Well... it'd be nice if that "constitutional scholar" thing was the worst piece of resume' fluffing and fraud the guy had done. That said... it'd be sorta nice if the president of the freakin country had a working knowledge of what our constitution allowed, AND FOLLOWED IT.

    Worse yet are the hordes of sheep that ignore it when he won't, on the simple grounds that they personally long for a strong "savior" who shares their love of Marxist doctrine.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  4. #4
    This will work it's way to the supremes.
    Whether the supremes will be dumb enough to take it on?

    Yes, unions are hurting....sad when the largest unions with the most members are in the government sector.
    And several more states are looking at right to work laws.

    The postal service has unions, from the clerks, the mailhandlers (of which believe it or not I am still a non-voting member of), and carriers.
    In Texas, right to work meant employees had the choice to join or not.
    Those unions have seen membership drop for a few reasons, but the biggest is that more and more people have realized that why pay unions/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    The Senate was in session. Harry Reid is in the same party as Obama and could have sent the Senate into recess. Then Obama could have made his recess appointments. Reid actually kept the Senate in session to prevent President George Bush from making recess appointments.

  6. #6
    Basically right now?
    The NLRB says business as usual as the court case was only for ONE particular case.
    All other rulings stay put.

    White House agrees.

    See, break a law, get caught, so break more laws to keep things the same.
    Typical democrats.....

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    Basically right now?
    The NLRB says business as usual as the court case was only for ONE particular case.
    All other rulings stay put.

    White House agrees.

    See, break a law, get caught, so break more laws to keep things the same.
    Typical democrats.....
    What blows my mind is that they have convinced themselves that they are warriors for the underdogs of the world. Try as you may...you can't reason with them and expect them to see reality. I get so frustrated trying to explain something that is black and white to me. I mean....math is math. The Constitution is clear.

  8. #8
    Forget math and the constitution.
    Government is all about one thing: power.
    From local governments to the top of the heap in DC.
    So people fight for the privilege of being the head of some agency just so they can flex their muscles and show others who is top dog.

    And no better example than Buck Ofama!
    He wanted the power that goes with being president and he let nothing stand in his way of getting to be president.
    He will (well hell has been) doing whatever he wants because dammit, he is president!

    Only way to end all this?
    If not a pure revolution, the PEOPLE of the USA must band together and get rid of every damn person in power.

    And never again allow anyone who is a lawyer to run for office.

  9. #9
    You could make a fair argument for taxation without representation these days. Obamacare is being used to regulate things that have nothing to do with health care. As for revolution... I'm not sure they plan to wait for one the way theyre weaponing up.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    As long as Harry Reid controls the Senate, Obama doesn't have to worry about impeachment.

    Billy Clinton was impeached and the Dems controlled the Senate. Clinton now bigger than ever.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •