Sunday, January 27, 2013

Score “One” for the Constitution v. Executive Office Abusers

Some of the best news I’ve read in a long time.  There is still some sanity in our courts and an understanding that the U.S. Constitution set-up a separation of powers intentionally to protect you and I from government tyranny.

The Landmark Legal Foundation (aka Mark Levin) has done our Country a great service by forcing this issue into the courts and setting the precedent that Presidents and their Executive Branch must follow the laws of the Constitution.

Enjoy the article and don’t forget to send your thanks to the Landmark Legal Foundation for taking this issue to court.

YiT ~  Shelly

Obama recess appointments unconstitutional

  • By Stephen Dinan

    The Washington Times; Friday, January 25, 2013

    • Richard Cordray stands left as President Obama announces in the State Dining Room of the White House on Jan. 24, 2013, that he will re-nominate Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a role that he has held for the last year under a recess appointment, and nominate Mary Joe White to lead the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). (Associated Press

      Richard Cordray stands left as President Obama announces in the State Dining ... more >


    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 he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have 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 “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.

    “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.

    The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future

    Read more:
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  • Of course the NLRB feels very confident that President Obama’s appointments will be upheld; so why adhere to a pesky verdict from an insignificant decision that goes against them?  They have important work to do and until someone forcibly stops them, they’re going to continue on as if nothing has changed.  Wonder if AG Holder’s office will step-in and uphold the federal courts ruling?

    YiT ~  Shelly

    Obama’s Union-Controlled NLRB Thumbs Nose At Court Ruling, Chairman Vows To March Onward

    By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2013 at 09:15 PM  |  29

    NLRB picketing

    Following Friday morning’s appeals court ruling that Barack Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, union attorney (and current NLRB chairman) Mark Gaston Pearce vowed to ignore the court’s ruling.

    In a statement posted on the NLRB’s website, Pearce stated:

    “The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

    Click here to read the full story.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Your feedback and comments are welcome!