Barack Obama Violates the Constitution

[Jack Springer]

It's not surprising that a thread hasn't been started on this news item.

I realize it's not PC on CEP to talk about awkward or uncomfortable subjects. I wonder how long this thread will be viewable.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in filling labor board vacancies, a decision that could reshape a long-standing practice by U.S. presidents to make recess appointments.

Even though the WH says that the they did no wrong and other Presidents have done the same thing for 150 years -- Obama did something different -- he made the appointments when the Senate was still in session.

While the plaintiff's case centered on those sessions, the court went a step further, declaring that Mr. Obama's appointments fell outside the bounds of his authority. It ruled that the Constitution's description of a recess refers only to the period between the roughly yearlong formal "sessions" of Congress, rather than during an effective break in proceedings. In this case, the Republicans contend Congress started a new session on Jan. 3, and Mr. Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...492524536.html

None of the appointees were ever brought up for approval by the Senate.

Obama tried to pack the NLRB. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. We don't need politicians like this around.

[CowboyBob]

It's those activist judges.

According to the linked article:

Mr. Obama has made 32 recess appointments, compared with 171 by Mr. Bush and 139 by Mr. Clinton.

Friday's opinion, by Judge David Sentelle, is directly at odds with a 2004 decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Atlanta, which upheld Mr. Bush's recess appointment of a federal judge against a similar challenge.

Laughable:

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said the court "reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience, but the law of the land."

But it says:

The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.

but republicans (as usual) are cheating.

Republican lawmakers held minutes-long meetings every few days, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that meant the chamber was technically in session.

It the republican corruption in the same vein as their voter fraud. When will they learn they were soundly rejected by the voters last November?

[Jack Springer]

The Senate was still in session when Obama made the appointments.

He's been found guilty of violating the law.

It's those activist judges.

According o the linked article:





Laughable:



But it says: but republicans (as usual) are cheating.

It the republican corruption in the same vein as their voter fraud. When will they learn they were soundly rejected by the voters last November?

[CowboyBob]

The Senate was still in session when Obama made the appointments.

He's been found guilty of violating the law.

Republicans cheating. That should have been your thread title.

"Republicans try to stop President Obama from making recess appointments by holding fake sessions"

Were you this upset when Bush did it? Please start a thread on that.

[palbert]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

Your source:

Such appointments—which bypass Senate approval to install top administration personnel—have been used by presidents for at least 90 years. But in the past two decades, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton ratcheted up use of the tactic to avert congressional obstacles. Friday's decision, if it holds, would restrain that power.

I think your own source keeps my comment on topic.

[CowboyBob]

The title of this thread and the title of the linked article are wrong. Springer linked to an article: Court Throws Out Recess Picks but if these picks were made when there was no recess then President Obama didn't violate the constitution. A court just threw out the picks. Both the OP and the writer of the headline have an agenda.

How about the headline "The Court threw out the Non-Recess picks".

It's just another fake scandal dreamed up by the Obama-haters.

Sorry to rain on your parade Springer.

[xbuzzerx]

Weren't recess appointments practically the rule under the previous administration, rather than the exception?

I felt like I was hearing about ninja recess appointments every other month.

[opinterph]

Weren't recess appointments practically the rule under the previous administration, rather than the exception?

I felt like I was hearing about ninja recess appointments every other month.

The decision addresses that implication:

Finally, we would make explicit what we have implied earlier. 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. 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.

Noel Canning, A Division Of The Noel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

[Jack Springer]

Bush and other US Presidents made recess appointments but they made them when the Senate was not in session. There is a big difference Bob, I know you understand this.

Republicans cheating. That should have been your thread title.

"Republicans try to stop President Obama from making recess appointments by holding fake sessions"

Were you this upset when Bush did it? Please start a thread on that.

[Jack Springer]

Another faux outrage thread... Obama went around a rule to make some appointment as republicans were dragging their feet. Big f-king deal. He was not found guilty of doing anything wrong. All the judge ruling was reverse a potential OPTION for President's to exercise. Prior Presidents did this same thing. This is just faux outrage in a weak attempt to claw at Obama.

Yea prior Presidents did this same thing and suddenly it's an issue if Obama does it.

This thread blatantly ignores history in a weak attempt to accuse Obama of being a criminal. It's nothing more than malarkey.

For the right winger... it's okay if a republican violates the law repeatedly and exercises a LONG STANDING OPTION, but if Obama exercises that option they want to put him on trial. Obama didn't violate the law. The court simply reversed an OPTION that was always there.

It was a federal court that said what he did was illegal.

You're ignoring the specifics. These people were never nominated.

[Jack Springer]

You're ignoring the fact that Obama made the recess appointments when the US Senate was still in session.

Bullshit!

I did look at the specifics. This option was applied by Presidents over 90 years. Those were recess appointments. The court never said what he did was illegal, they said the option was invalid. Look at the fucking decision please.

PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN APPOINTING PEOPLE THIS WAY FOR 90 YEARS AND I DEMAND PROOF OTHERWISE. Put up, or stop making the phony argument that he broke the law when he never did that and the Court never said he did.

The senate wasn't in session when Obama made these appointments. And I'll repeat it again: THEY WERE NOT IN SESSION.

Next time don't cite some op/ed article distorting the facts.

[CowboyBob]

Bush and other US Presidents made recess appointments but they made them when the Senate was not in session. There is a big difference Bob, I know you understand this.

Back and forth.... back and forth.....

Senate in session? Meetings lasting a few minutes every few days? Republican cheating. Read the fine print.

And your title is still wrong. YOUR President didn't violate the constitution.

Who was against the appointments? The republicans, especially Utah Senator Mike Lee.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...court.html.csp

I know you don't understand this.


The way this party is continuing to act they will be a footnote in history in the not too distant future.

You're ignoring the fact that Obama made the recess appointments when the US Senate was still in session.

According to you, if they were still in session they WEREN'T recess appointments.

Think before you type Springer.

[opinterph]

I think this could be a very interesting discussion, if we find a way to set aside the identity of the current president long enough to examine the underlying theory and implications of this ruling from the DC Court of Appeals.

[JayHawk]

He was found guilty by a political activist judge trying to write law from the bench. The SCOTUS will put this to rest very easily. I sincerely doubt they will uphold the right of the republican party to destroy our government by refusing to do anything and playing petty games with Senate Sessions. Until then nothing has really been decided has it?

Otherwise if you go from simply carte blanche acceptance of inferior courts that means DOMA has already been thoroughly crushed and Gay Marriage is legal in California.

So Jack do you now agree those things are completely done and decided and your henchmen should back off?

[tigerfan482]

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs...B%20P%20%20%0A

There is a great link explaining recess appointments, what it means for the Senate to be in recess, what the constitutional questions are, etc. I'd suggest giving it a read.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court has not weighed in before on recess appointments. The Constitution clearly allows them, but is very vague on how long the Senate has to be in recess before they can be made. I'm interested to see if the Supreme Court takes this up or not. I don't think any ruling will stand until the Supreme Court decides it.

[opinterph]

I don't think any ruling will stand until the Supreme Court decides it.

What would cause the ruling to come before the Supreme Court?

[JayHawk]

Good link, TigerFan

And I agree in a tiff between the Other Two Branches of our Government the only viable authority is the SCOTUS. Checks and balances. A very sympathetic to the cause judge made this ruling. The SCOTUS will not be so rash in becoming a political pawn.

[JayHawk]

What would cause the ruling to come before the Supreme Court?

You don't think the Executive will challenge the republican party doing irreparable damage to Executive appointments and the agencies they directed?

Everything done since that persons appointment would be invalid. Every labor dispute resolved since the appointment would be forfeit. I am thinking a challenge is forthcoming.

[opinterph]

I don't think any ruling will stand until the Supreme Court decides it.

What would cause the ruling to come before the Supreme Court?

I am thinking a challenge is forthcoming.

Will the ruling stand if there is no challenge?

[opinterph]

He was found guilty by a political activist judge trying to write law from the bench.

The decision did not include the phrase “violates the Constitution.”

The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and two Circuit Judges heard the argument. Which one of those is the “political activist judge trying to write law from the bench?”

[JayHawk]

Will the ruling stand if there is no challenge?

I am sure it will. If the party ruled against agrees and then pulls their appointee and cancels all activity officiated by the erroneously appointed ..... I just don't see that happening. I remember the discussion when he made the appointment. Obama is a lawyer as are most the people he works with day in and day out. Do you think he will simply roll over and agree he was completely wrong?

The decision did not include the phrase “violates the Constitution.”

The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and two Circuit Judges heard the argument. Which one of those is the “political activist judge trying to write law from the bench?”

I was being incendiary. It plays well here usually. Although the matinee is better on the weekends.

[Jack Springer]

I think all nominees deserve an up or down vote. ... but there are Senate rules.

I like how this thread went exactly 1 post before devolving down into "but Bush did it too..."

this decision is kind of a big deal, but it's a safe bet that it will be appealed. it basically neuters the power of the recess appointment, which I'd probably support if Republican and Democratic congresses alike were capable of ensuring up-or-down votes on nominees.

[JayHawk]

It isn't Senate rules that are in contention. It is the guidelines set about by our constitution. I doubt the forefathers envisioned a technology that would allow Senators to stay in Washington and have meetings that last a few moments just so they can prevent the executive from acting. Likewise I doubt they intended for the Executive to routinely exclude the legislative in their constitutional duty to approve appointees. It is rather childish wouldn't you think?

Although if you look at the speed of which Immigration reform is moving then it becomes clear that when those folks are actually interested in doing something positive for the American people instead of for themselves then things can be accomplished.

[star-warrior]

Are there still any Bush era appointments that are still in office that can be removed due to them being 'unconstitutional'?

[crimsonpaine]

Democrats used pro forma sessions to keep Bush from making recess appointments. Why is it okay for them to have done that when we had a Republican in office, and now not okay for Republicans to do the same thing now that we have a Democrat in office?

Same with when Bush was in office, it was considered "Patriotic" to speak out against the administration. But now it's unpatriotic to speak out against the administration because it's a Democrat.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Democrats used pro forma sessions to keep Bush from making recess appointments. Why is it okay for them to have done that when we had a Republican in office, and now not okay for Republicans to do the same thing now that we have a Democrat in office?

Same with when Bush was in office, it was considered "Patriotic" to speak out against the administration. But now it's unpatriotic to speak out against the administration because it's a Democrat.

Uh...what? Did you just return from some Mirror Universe?

During the Bush II years, criticizing GWB would elicit cries of "Traitor!" and "Unpatriotic!" from the Fox News set. Of course, those same people had no compunction of accusing Obama of being an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist and/or a secret Communist homosexual.

[crimsonpaine]

You haven't answered why it's okay now. Just explained your opinion based on your ideology and dislike of bush.

[crimsonpaine]

No you didn't. You says it good for Obama because you like Obama and wrong for bush because you don't like him. I understand that.

But what's good for one is good another.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

You haven't answered why it's okay now. Just explained your opinion based on your ideology and dislike of bush.

It's always been okay. It was OK when Reagan did it. It was OK when Bush I did it. It was OK when Bush II did it. But now that Obama is doing it, it's sudden "not OK". That's the issue.

[Rolyo85]

Democrats used pro forma sessions to keep Bush from making recess appointments. Why is it okay for them to have done that when we had a Republican in office, and now not okay for Republicans to do the same thing now that we have a Democrat in office?

Same with when Bush was in office, it was considered "Patriotic" to speak out against the administration. But now it's unpatriotic to speak out against the administration because it's a Democrat.

Your partisan drivel aside, to me both are equally whatever. The question that needs to be asked is why people are outraged by one thing when it's the other side's guy, but not outraged by the same thing when it's their own guy. I think anyone with that mindset is instantly discredited, unless he can provide context that would legitimately make the two things different.

[maxpowr9]

it would seem logical to me to assume what whatever power you grant one President, the next is going to have as well, even if it's a President that you don't like.

edit:



I don't think the "problem" is with the recess appointment itself, but rather, whether a pro forma session of the Senate counts as a recess or not.

I don't think GWB's recess appointments were made during pro forma sessions, otherwise it probably wouldn't have been news when Obama did it.

There needs to be a quorum of a simple majority [50 in the case of the senate] in order for any house to hold a session, even a pro forma. It's in the rules for the Senate [and the Constitution too]. Unless they can prove that 50 current office-holding senators at the time these supposed sessions happened were "present", the meetings technically did not take place.

[CowboyBob]

the big deal is that the President made the recess appointment during a pro forma session of the Senate...

"pro forma" = for the sake of form = fake = false

If they were having fake sessions... a few minutes a few days apart... they weren't real meetings. It's all bullshit.

It's yet another pathetic attempt for the right wing to discredit the President.

[CowboyBob]

Harry Reid is part of the vast right wing conspiracy? he's the one who started this tactic.

you can agree or disagree with the concept entirely, but it's a joke to blame Republicans for a tactic that Democrats invented.

Is there any way to explain this so you'll understand?..... here I'll try.....

You can blame the republicans for making a big deal out of this with their "pro forma" meetings when this (recess appointments) have been done for 90 years as mentioned in the article. Wasn't aware Harry Reid was that old.

If you don't think republicans are out to discredit the President then there's no hope. I believe they will try to do what they did to Clinton in his second term.

[xbuzzerx]

Harry Reid is part of the vast right wing conspiracy? he's the one who started this tactic.

you can agree or disagree with the concept entirely, but it's a joke to blame Republicans for a tactic that Democrats invented.

Loki why do you even enter or make these sweeping claims about political history when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about?

[Tengilethos]

It is interesting to me as a foreigner what occupies the Americans in this thread.

Obama made recess appointments of questioning legality. The Senate was technically not in recess, although it is possible that pro-forma sessions without quorum can be seen as the Senate being in recess, since the Senate could not fulfill it's duty to advise and consent regarding the President's nominees. To me it is not obvious which side has the better legal argument, but the Supreme Court will decide this so let's wait and see.

Regarding the morality of these pro-forma sessions: They were not right when the Democrats used them, and they were not right when the Republicans used them.

But why is the fact that the court held intra-session recess appointments as illegal not a bigger issue here? With the practical elimination of inter-session recesses, this basically nullifies the recess appointment power of the President as laid out in the constitution, and invalidates a practices that has seen heavy use for at least 6 decades. This ruling would make the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. illegal. George Bush had over 100 recess appointments, all illegal if this ruling stands. Will all of their actions be invalidated as well? All executive decisions? All convictions in cases where a judge or judges had been a recess appointment?

I'm curious why this is barely worth a mention when this has possibly so far reaching consequences.

[JayHawk]

Opi it appears while I said that the judges we're legislating from the bench just to infuriate, I end up actually being correct.

For those of you outside of the US find it confusing definitely read this article so it can explain in detail why this is a subjugation of the power of both our Senate and president.

Posting from my phone so links are a bitch. Go to Slate. Com and search for "Senate democracy is dead"

[Jack Springer]

The Senate was in recess and Obama did not follow the law. A US President is only able to make recess appointments if the Senate is not in session. The appointments are not permanent either -- the are only for a limited time.

Other US Presidents have made recess appointments but they have done it when the Senate was in recess.

It's not sure yet if the decisions made by his appointments can still be upheld. Since this was a court case it may well go to the Supreme Court -- they will probably make a decision soon whether they want to rule on this or not.

The USA has 3 branches of government -- a check-and-balances system between the three branches.

It is interesting to me as a foreigner what occupies the Americans in this thread.

Obama made recess appointments of questioning legality. The Senate was technically not in recess, although it is possible that pro-forma sessions without quorum can be seen as the Senate being in recess, since the Senate could not fulfill it's duty to advise and consent regarding the President's nominees. To me it is not obvious which side has the better legal argument, but the Supreme Court will decide this so let's wait and see.

Regarding the morality of these pro-forma sessions: They were not right when the Democrats used them, and they were not right when the Republicans used them.

But why is the fact that the court held intra-session recess appointments as illegal not a bigger issue here? With the practical elimination of inter-session recesses, this basically nullifies the recess appointment power of the President as laid out in the constitution, and invalidates a practices that has seen heavy use for at least 6 decades. This ruling would make the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. illegal. George Bush had over 100 recess appointments, all illegal if this ruling stands. Will all of their actions be invalidated as well? All executive decisions? All convictions in cases where a judge or judges had been a recess appointment?

I'm curious why this is barely worth a mention when this has possibly so far reaching consequences.

[tigerfan482]

The Senate was in recess and Obama did not follow the law. A US President is only able to make recess appointments if the Senate is not in session. The appointments are not permanent either -- the are only for a limited time.

It's hard to make that claim. The Constitution doesn't define what constitutes a Senate recess. The only thing that has been used in the past are legal opinions from the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is or is not Constitutional, so we'll have to wait and see what they say. I think a good argument can be made that pro forma sessions unconstitutionally inhibit powers granted to the executive branch.

[JayHawk]

Here is that article I bfirefly mentioned above. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...of_senate.html

It is an interesting read as the SCOTUS has already ruled on WHO has standing to demand that something done was action taken illegally. The minority party in the Senate IS NOT the legal voice of that body and therefore is not able to demand a case be heard. Niether is a disgruntled corporation who seeks to invalidate the Labor board rulings.

A key 1997 Supreme Court case, Byrd v. Raines, says that only a majority of senators have proper standing in court to complain of presidential actions violating the rights of the Senate. Why should a private party—in this case, a bottling company being regulated by the National Labor Relations Board, which has three members appointed by Obama in January 2012—have standing to raise the rights of the Senate itself?

Since the Court overstepped its bounds by making a ruling (primarily because each of them were republican appointees), then it goes without saying that the SCOTUS and a Chief Justice Roberts who is loath to overturn precedent will decide that the DC Circuit failed in its judgement.

The article is mostly about inept Democratic Senatorial Leadership for those of you biologically wired to not disagree with republicans -- ever. So have a read... most of it will make you smile and hate Harry Reid even more than many left wingers do now...

Cheers.

[opinterph]

Opi it appears while I said that the judges we're legislating from the bench just to infuriate, I end up actually being correct.

I think you may be on to something.

Compare the ruling to the amicus brief filed by Senate Republicans.

Brief for Amici Curiae Senate Republican Leader Mitch Mcconnell and 41 Other Members of the United States Senate in Support of Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Noel Canning

[JayHawk]

Well I dont know that I am on to something... but I know a guy who writes articles I read on the internets and he is on to something... lol.

I suppose we will see. I have also read (again on Slate) that the Senate rules although they did not reform the filibuster they have made it much easier to confirm appointees. So hopefully Obama can simply nominate them again and let the legal fight play out while our departments of government actually have the folks appointed to operate.

It is remarkable that republicans get folks to buy stories about massive inept abilities of the government all the while hamstringing effective use of assets. Democrats are no better because if they would be in the minority they would pass the same scurrilous poltical bull pucky.

[darden]

too bad Jack isn't here to gloat, but it looks like he was right.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the president’s power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama.

The court’s first-ever case involving the Constitution’s recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution’s provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess.

Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted.

Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.

The justices rejected that argument Wednesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

[Sausy]

unanimous ruling, too... even usually liberal votes on the court couldn't support the President's actions. Not saying Bush or other Republicans haven't acted weaselly, but Obama simply was too obvious here. Glad they all could agree on something.

[big_guy]

This is all quite moot in light of today's US Supreme Court ruling, which was unanimous. I note that politicians didd not bring the action, but a business entity challenging the validity of labor rulings mad by Pres. Obama's interrim appointments. I think it safe to say that the decision was not made exclusively on political grounds, and certainly not because all the justices are, perforce, bigots. I note too, that this ruling will be binding on future Presidents, of whatever party. Clearly, this was a ruling in protection of the the balance of power provisions of the Constitution, which would be cast aside at the risk of tyrany.

[smokeshadow]

As I see it, what has been happening is that Congress isn't doing it's job in filling these vacancies so that the President can do his job as a manager should. He tried to work around Congress and got slapped down by the SCOTUS (as he should have). But, the onus lies with Congress to get off of it's collective corporate assets and do it's job instead of trying to repeal a law some 40 or so times without success (one would think that after the 3rd of 4th attempt, they'd grow a pair and move on ) or attempting to have the House Speaker sue the President. Can you imagine Speaker Sam Rayburn or even Tip O'Neil ever stooping that low

[Kulindahr]

Note that there was more than one aspect here, and a related aspect wasn't unanimous:

Breyer and the court’s liberals, joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, read the Constitution to give wide authority to the president to make recess appointments when the Senate was on any break of 10 days or longer.

So it sounds like the Senate is in session when it says it is, but if they skip town for more than ten days it doesn't matter what they say. So the bit of enough of them showing up every several days to transact some business, however minor, is legit for keeping the President from making appointments, but they have to convene at least once in ten days.

[rareboy]

Ahhh. A Springer thread. Good Times.

[palbert]

Note that there was more than one aspect here, and a related aspect wasn't unanimous:



So it sounds like the Senate is in session when it says it is, but if they skip town for more than ten days it doesn't matter what they say. So the bit of enough of them showing up every several days to transact some business, however minor, is legit for keeping the President from making appointments, but they have to convene at least once in ten days.

OR, a senator present to question the presence of a quorum.

I question the existence of a quorum.

Can a president (with a little help from one senator of his party) circumvent most of the Court’s limitation on the recess appointments power?

...., it seems that yesterday’s decision could be substantially a dead letter, so long as the Senate does take recesses longer than nine days. In other words, pro forma sessions may not count, so long as a single member of the president’s party is available to make the point that the Senate is not actually present.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/ca...ntments-power/

A thoughtful discussion.

(OH Jack, I miss you and chance1.)

[Kulindahr]

OR, a senator present to question the presence of a quorum.

I question the existence of a quorum.

True -- they can't exactly be in session if there's no quorum.

[JayHawk]

The best part of all? Once Dmeocrats are not in the majority they will use all the same tactics and cause the republicans to be frustrated just as much as the scoundrels have frustrated our recovery.