DC Circuit Court Unanimously Rules Obama Violated Constitution

0
Share

EBtoo powerful

Update: 1/27: President Obama will not abide by the ruling of the DC Circuit Court. Over 218 ruling which hurt small business have been affected and they will each have to sue on each issue because the administration will not vacate the rulings as required by the circuit court. [breitbart]

Original Story: 1/125: Our President, who is a constitutional lawyer, violated the law when he made NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) “recess” appointments when there was no recess.

A DC circuit court ruled that the president abused his powers by making appointments while the Senate was in session. [Republican Senators had remained to keep the Senate from going into recess.]

Of course the White House disagrees with the decision as stated by Jay Carney barker today. Carney lied and said the courts ignored 150 years of precedent. The truth is that no president has EVER done what president Obama did in making these appointments while the Senate was in session.

The order vacates the appointments and all decisions made by them.

There is a stay on the order because the court expects appeals to be filed.

The ruling says that the president violated the Constitution’s mandate that recess power is reserved for vacancies that happen when Congress is in recess.

“We hold that the appointment to that seat is invalid because the President must make the recess appointment during the same intersession recess when the vacancy for that office arose,” the court said in the ruling. [freebeacon]

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation joined the suit and said that case is a win for the constitution and checks and balances.

Recess appointments have been misused for decades but this most recent use was the worst case of abuse because there was no legitimate recess.

via  Washington Examiner

Tom Donohue of he Chamber of Commerce responded to the ruling by saying:

“We are pleased with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that the President’s recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. We warned last year that by appointing these members to the NLRB in such a controversial fashion, the President placed a cloud of uncertainty over the agency and its work. The D.C. Circuit’s historic decision has confirmed our concerns. The U.S. Chamber has been proud to stand with our member Noel Canning from the beginning, and they will continue to enjoy our full support and backing.”

Josh Goldstein of the AFL-CIO tweeted: “Keep your powder dry, NLRB still open for business folks.”

Another problem for Obama is the Cordray appointment which is being challenged in the courts now. Obama bragged about the unilateral Cordray appointment when he re-nominated Cordray to continue in the post.

“[Cordray] wasn’t allowed an up or down vote in the Senate, and as a consequence, I took action to appoint him on my own,” Obama said.  “And over the last year, Richard has proved to be a champion of American consumers.”

Senator Mitch McConnell said, “This decision now casts serious doubt  on whether the President’s ‘recess’ appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the President announced at the same time, is constitutional.”

 IS posted this on January 11th:

…Recently President Obama appointed three members — a controlling majority — to the five-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), as well as the first director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while the Senate was in session, claiming it was in recess [some Republican Senators remained in Congress to keep the Senate in session and make certain Obama was not able to make these appointments].

Obama was the first president in US history to do this. Normally, the Senate approves these appointments but, when in recess, the President has the power to fill the vacancies. The problem is that the Senate was in session.

Article II, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution states that “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions, which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

This clause seems clear to me. It “expires at the End of the next Session.” That being the case, even though the President made the appointments unlawfully, the appointments should end regardless. It is the End of the Session...Read more about his egregious errors interpreting the Constitution here.

He not only violated the Constitution in making the appointments but he violated it again when he continued their appointments beyond the session.

 

Share