Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional. (Quad Source) - Polidicks

Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional FOX January 25, 2013 [quote]A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution when he sidestepped the Senate to fill open spots on a labor relations panel, in a major setback for the president. The suit had been brought by a local business in Washington state challenging the National Labor Relations Board. Supported by dozens of Senate Republicans, the case argued the president didn't have the power to make three appointments to the NLRB. [/quote] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional[/url] CBS January 25, 2013, 12:12 PM [quote]The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case. Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.[/quote] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57565869/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/[/url] Miami Herald Friday, 01.25.13 [quote]The court's decision acknowledges that it conflicts with what other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court. The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made on Jan. 4, 2012, has been challenged in a separate case. Carney insisted the court's ruling affected only one case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job. The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.[/quote] [url]http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/25/v-fullstory/3200345/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional.html#storylink=cpy[/url] CNN [quote]"The D.C. Circuit Court today reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience but the law of the land, agreeing with the owners of a family-owned business who brought the case to the Court," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. Some GOP lawmakers also accused the president of flip-flopping on the issue. When he was a senator, Obama criticized then-President Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador. Cordray was named the same day as the three NLRB appointments, which gave the board a full panel for the first time in a year. Two of the people were Democrats, the other a Republican. The lawsuit was brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned Yakima, Washington bottling company, which complained the NLRB unfairly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract negotiations. Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal. "Small-business owners throughout the country have suffered under the unabashedly pro-union decisions handed down by the NLRB," said Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "They deserve to be protected from unconstitutional acts that exacerbate the NLRB's devolution from a neutral arbiter between labor and employers to a pro-union government agency."[/quote] [url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/25/appeals-court-rules-obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t4[/url]

Haven't unions been in serious decline in the US for quite some time anyways? Like I'm not too sure how unions are too strong or have penalized small business owners.

RIP US constitution. 1788 - 2013 You were terrible.

So this is unconstitutional but executive orders to kill U.S. citizens, control firearms, and suspend habeus corpus for suspected terrorists isn't? Right.

[IMG]http://www.cdotech.com/CmsFiles/2/Editor/Images/washington-dc.jpg[/IMG] Long ago in a distant land... [T]http://i.imgur.com/6VigKDD.png[/T] I, Obama, the shape-shifting Master of Darkness, unleashed an unspeakable evil! [T]http://i.imgur.com/X9az3WN.png[/T] But a foolish Republican warrior wielding the Constitution stepped forth to oppose me. [T]http://i.imgur.com/onl0YZF.png[/T] [T]http://i.imgur.com/Rxt4XtX.png[/T] Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in time and flung him into the future, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to the past, and undo the future that is Obama! [T]http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/206142-war-never-changes-absurdity-in-the-world-of-fallout/destroyedDC-620x.jpg[/T]

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;39358280]executive orders to kill U.S. citizens, control firearms, and suspend habeus corpus for suspected terrorists isn't? Right.[/QUOTE] Good thing Obama does none of these terrible things, including drone strikes resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths, ...oh wait he does!

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;39358280]So this is unconstitutional but executive orders to kill U.S. citizens, control firearms, and suspend habeus corpus for suspected terrorists isn't? Right.[/QUOTE] Cite some sources

[QUOTE=EliteGuy;39358572]Good thing Obama does none of these terrible things, including drone strikes resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths, ...oh wait he does![/QUOTE] Except he hasn't? Unless you count Afghani citizens. That's just what happens in an occupation. [editline]25th January 2013[/editline] Also. I want to know at what level this court is. Just saying.

[QUOTE=areolop;39358603]Cite some sources[/QUOTE] I think he is talking about this: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1242020[/url]

Damn you Obama, how dare you do something that 43 presidents before you have done. Shame be upon you!

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39358612]Also. I want to know at what level this court is. Just saying.[/QUOTE] Pick a source, they should all tell you if you read any of the full articles.

[QUOTE=tinhead50;39358700]Damn you Obama, how dare you do something that 43 presidents before you have done. Shame be upon you![/QUOTE] The thing I do not like about this type of argument is that it shows that rather than fix something that is wrong, do it and point out, "Well, they did it too!" If you have the power to change something, then do it. If not, then you are no better than the ones that did.

Good on the courts. Those who break the rules deserve punishment. About damn time the courts catch on to his unconstitutional bullshit, all the while he's crying to the people saying, "I'm just trying to do the right thing and those mean republicans keep blocking it." [QUOTE=tinhead50;39358700]Damn you Obama, how dare you do something that 43 presidents before you have done. Shame be upon you![/QUOTE] Actually sir, no other president has done this. Obama declared the congress was in recess, which he can't do. Only the congress can say they're in recess. Both the house and senate must say they're in recess, which they did not.

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39359209]The thing I do not like about this type of argument is that it shows that rather than fix something that is wrong, do it and point out, "Well, they did it too!" If you have the power to change something, then do it. If not, then you are no better than the ones that did.[/QUOTE] The idea I'm getting at, and why I use this argument, is because those who are going after president Obama for something such as this are exclusively doing so because of the political landscape and how it might benefit the opposition rather than attempting to simply stop him from doing a supposedly illegitimate action. In fact, the single biggest reason this is even an issue at all right now is because of those he put in making decisions that didn't exclusively favor businesses and the Republican platform. Also, putting all that aside, recess appointments are not something that is "wrong." In fact, the purpose is so that positions can be filled during times when congress is not in session and can not meet to approve those appointments. You have to remember that congress isn't always in session, or at least wasn't until the second half of the 20th century, and even then, doesn't always meet. When a position needs filled and congress isn't in session, this ability comes into effect. Certainly presidents have used it to side-step congress, however this is the political world. Additionally, I've yet to see an article go in-depth and place blame on previous presidents for making appointments during recess that might have been (and many most likely were) controversial. There are a few major incidents in the past seven decades, but in the long haul, much of the news fails to remember that nearly every, if not all, presidents have used the ability to appoint individuals to positions during a recess. [QUOTE=UziXxX;39359376]Actually sir, no other president has done this. Obama declared the congress was in recess, which he can't do. Only the congress can say they're in recess. Both the house and senate must say they're in recess, which they did not.[/QUOTE] I agree with you that no other president has done an appointment in the specific way president Obama did, but then again, what the Republicans in the senate were doing at the time this happened has also never happened before in the history of congress. One can't be wrong without the other in this case, and I must reaffirm that I believe the only reason this is happening is because of the choices made by those he appointed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39358227]Haven't unions been in serious decline in the US for quite some time anyways? Like I'm not too sure how unions are too strong or have penalized small business owners.[/QUOTE] the labor movement pretty much died in the usa...however it's supposedly making a bit of a comeback from what i've heard.

Oh, Glaber, never change.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39359376] Actually sir, no other president has done this. Obama declared the congress was in recess, which he can't do. Only the congress can say they're in recess. Both the house and senate must say they're in recess, which they did not.[/QUOTE] Then, what about these guys? [url]http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm[/url] Or does this not count?

They were not there but it was not unconstitutional, it was totally fine, they were still technically in session.

Fyi I was not just criticizing Obama with that comment, but also the court and congress for deciding that this was unconstitutional while neglecting the unwholesome activities of the past dozen or so presidents since it didn't argue with their military-industrial concerns.

[QUOTE=Sodisna;39364868]Then, what about these guys? [url]http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm[/url] Or does this not count?[/QUOTE] So.... Do you want us to pull those presidents out of their graves and arrest them or...? Does not matter if it has happened in the past or not. It does not make things right. We were not around then to fight such items. But we're here now, so we will deal with the present.

[QUOTE=Sodisna;39364868]Then, what about these guys? [url]http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm[/url] Or does this not count?[/QUOTE] Those count, but I'm specifically talking about a president declaring the congress to be in recess.

Obama should be impeached. Hes done so much wrong its crazy.

It's amazing the stupid, inconsequential shit that people think Obama should be outright impeached for, when these same people didn't say a peep during the entire Bush presidency.

[quote]Some GOP lawmakers also accused the president of flip-flopping on the issue. When he was a senator, Obama criticized then-President Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador.[/quote] so.. bush did this too? but obama is the one getting in trouble?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39370084]so.. bush did this too? but obama is the one getting in trouble?[/QUOTE] The president is allowed to appoint someone whilst the congress is in recess, but it is only temporary. Their appointment expires onces congress resumes from recess. What Bush did was legal because the congress said it was in recess. The situation with Obama is different, because Obama declared the congress to be in recess, which he is not allowed to do. Congress is only in recess when both houses say they are. No one else can declare congress to be in recess. So what made what Obama did illegal? He appointed someone without congressional approval when congress wasn't in recess.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39370112]The president is allowed to appoint someone whilst the congress is in recess, but it is only temporary. Their appointment expires onces congress resumes from recess. What Bush did was legal because the congress said it was in recess. The situation with Obama is different, because Obama declared the congress to be in recess, which he is not allowed to do. Congress is only in recess when both houses say they are. No one else can declare congress to be in recess. So what made what Obama did illegal? He appointed someone without congressional approval when congress wasn't in recess.[/QUOTE] so congress was there ready to do work and obama told them all to go home or what

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39369756]It's amazing the stupid, inconsequential shit that people think Obama should be outright impeached for, when these same people didn't say a peep during the entire Bush presidency.[/QUOTE] We all know "presidentin' while black" is a crime most heinous, which means Obama is impeached and Sarah Palin is automatically queen of the universe.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39370129]so congress was there ready to do work and obama told them all to go home or what[/QUOTE] No, they weren't there because it was over Christmas I believe, but just because no one is physically in the building doesn't mean the congress is in recess.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39370150]No, they weren't there because it was over Christmas I believe, but just because no one is physically in the building doesn't mean the congress is in recess.[/QUOTE] so congress was gone, not working, out of the building, but not in recess?? [editline]26th January 2013[/editline] because that sounds an awful lot like congress was in recess but never declared it

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39369756]It's amazing the stupid, inconsequential shit that people think Obama should be outright impeached for, when these same people didn't say a peep during the entire Bush presidency.[/QUOTE] Not true, the tea party formed during the Bush administration because they were so outraged. Bush was a tyrant, there is no question about it. [editline]26th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39370167]so congress was gone, not working, out of the building, but not in recess?? [editline]26th January 2013[/editline] because that sounds an awful lot like congress was in recess but never declared it[/QUOTE] In order for congress to be in recess, both the House of Representatives and the Senate must agree to a recess. When the first congress was held, there were no air planes, ect, and the representatives needed a long time to travel to their districts and discuss things. The constitution talks about [I]the[/I] recess, as in one.