PDA

View Full Version : The grand const. scholar violated the constitution



luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 11:40 AM
So, since the grand wizard swore an oath to uphold the constitution what is the penalty?
I say treason, charge him now!!!!


Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutionalAppeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutionalhttp://news.yahoo.com/court-obama-appointments-unconstitutional-154915026.html

road kill
01-25-2013, 11:42 AM
So, since the grand wizard swore an oath to uphold the constitution what is the penalty?
I say treason, charge him now!!!!


Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutionalAppeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutionalhttp://news.yahoo.com/court-obama-appointments-unconstitutional-154915026.html

"At this point, does it really matter??"

luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 11:44 AM
"At this point, does it really matter??"
Well if we can charge him with treason like any other citizen, we would be done wth him!

road kill
01-25-2013, 11:50 AM
First off, I was just quoteing Hillary.

Secondly, THIS;

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i365/NiyahBieber/1844089035_photobucket_208129_.jpg

paul young
01-25-2013, 11:53 AM
So, since the grand wizard swore an oath to uphold the constitution what is the penalty?
I say treason, charge him now!!!!


Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutionalAppeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutionalhttp://news.yahoo.com/court-obama-appointments-unconstitutional-154915026.html


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Please think before spewing nonsense.-Paul

road kill
01-25-2013, 11:54 AM
Please think before spewing nonsense.-Paul

I'll think about it!

luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 11:58 AM
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Please think before spewing nonsense.-Paul

MAybe the grand poobah of constitutional scholorship should read the darn thing before running around violating it.
At the least he should be impeached!

zeus3925
01-25-2013, 12:03 PM
MAybe the grand poobah of constitutional scholorship should read the darn thing before running around violating it.
At the least he should be impeached!

You should do likewise, Luv. Practice what you preach.

luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 12:06 PM
You should do likewise, Luv. Practice what you preach.

I've read it more than once and darn well knew his recess crap was a violation at the time as I;m sure he did.
Difference is he spat on the constitution!

Eric Johnson
01-25-2013, 12:26 PM
Things that are unconstitutional are not necessarily a treasonous act. Otherwise we'd have every member of Congress and half or better of the Governors and state legislatures on charges of treason. Legislation is passed all the time and signed by the President or Governor of a state and then later found to be unconstitutional.

All the court did was exercise the balance that is one of the features that we're so proud of in our constitution.

luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 12:33 PM
Yeah well maybe this clown should stop claiming to be an expert, some sort of I know all whatever about the constitution. The average citizen knew he violated it at the time. So enough of him being an expert.

Gerry Clinchy
01-25-2013, 03:38 PM
The old axiom may apply: It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

BonMallari
01-25-2013, 03:55 PM
Yeah well maybe this clown should stop claiming to be an expert, some sort of I know all whatever about the constitution. The average citizen knew he violated it at the time. So enough of him being an expert.

As much as you would like to believe that BHO came up with this idea all by his lonesome, nothing could be further from the truth...he doesnt take a trip to the bathroom without consulting with Valerie Jarrett and Richard Trumpka (AFL CIO pres), fairly sure they along with his legal counsel thought they had the authority to bully his way thru the process...I wouldnt start celebrating just yet because this is headed to SCOTUS and who knows how they will rule

smillerdvm
01-26-2013, 08:41 AM
I've read it more than once and darn well knew his recess crap was a violation at the time as I;m sure he did.
Difference is he spat on the constitution!

Luvvy you have certainly shown your grasp of the Constitution in this thread
Youve even got RK the leader of the echo chamber agreeing with you:)

luvmylabs23139
01-26-2013, 09:55 AM
Luvvy you have certainly shown your grasp of the Constitution in this thread
Youve even got RK the leader of the echo chamber agreeing with you:)

The senate was not in recess, just ask Harry who did the same thing when Bush was President. The difference is Bush did not try to cheat the constitution. BUMFACE knew he was not alllowed to do what he did but he threw the bird at the law of the land. Obama knows he can break the law and it takes time for him to be called on the carpet legally for it. THe man is a total piece of garbage.

Golddogs
01-26-2013, 11:00 AM
[QUOTE=luvmylabs23139;1060021]So, since the grand wizard swore an oath to uphold the constitution what is the penalty?
I say treason, charge him now!!!!

I say do a bit of research before making such sweeping proclaimations. Following a procedure dating back 150 years is nothing new I suggest a close look at the highlited area below.

Fair and BALANCED Regards

Recess appointments to labor board rejected

Appeals court rules that Obama violated the Constitution


By Charlie Savage and Steven Greenhouse

New York Times

WASHINGTON — In a ruling that called into question nearly two centuries of presidential “recess” appointments that bypass the Senate confirmation process, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, Jan. 25, that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he installed three officials on the National Labor Relations Board a year ago.

The ruling was a blow to the administration and a victory for Obama’s Republican critics — and a handful of liberal ones — who had accused him of improperly asserting that he could make the appointments under his executive powers. The administration had argued that the president could decide that senators were really on a lengthy recess even though the Senate considered itself to be meeting in “pro forma” sessions.

But the court went beyond the narrow dispute over pro forma sessions and issued a far more sweeping ruling than expected. Legal specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment power for all future presidents at a time when it has become increasingly difficult to win Senate confirmation for nominees.

“If this opinion stands, I think it will fundamentally alter the balance between the Senate and the president by limiting the president’s ability to keep offices filled,” said John Elwood, who handled recess appointment issues for the Justice Department during the administration of President George W. Bush. “This is certainly a red-letter day in presidential appointment power.” The Constitution, written at a time when it could take weeks for members of Congress to get to the capital, allows presidents to fill vacancies temporarily during recesses for positions that would otherwise require Senate confirmation. In recent years, as senators have frequently balked at consenting to executive appointments, that authority has served as a safety valve for presidents of both parties.

Obama has made about 32 such appointments, including that of Richard Cordray, as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Bill Clinton made 139, while Bush made 171, including those of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and two appeals court judges, William Pryor and Charles Pickering.

Nearly all of those appointments would be unconstitutional under the rationale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It ruled that presidents may bypass the confirmation process only during the sort of recess that occurs between formal sessions of Congress, a gap that generally arises just once a year and sometimes is skipped, rather than other breaks throughout the year. Two of the three judges on the panel also ruled that presidents may fill only vacancies that arise during that same recess.

Presidents have used recess appointments to fill vacancies that opened before a recess since the 1820s, and have made recess appointments during Senate breaks in the midst of sessions going back to 1867. But the three judges, all appointed by Republicans, said the original meaning of the words used in the Constitution clashed with subsequent historical practices.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said: “The decision is novel and unprecedented. It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations. So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the ruling.” Carney did not say whether the Justice Department would appeal it.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by a Pepsi-Cola bottler from Washington state that challenged a National Labor Relations Board decision against the company in a labor dispute. The bottler argued, and the court agreed, that the three Obama appointments were invalid and that the five-seat board lacked a quorum to take any action.

While the ruling’s immediate impact was to invalidate the decision in the bottler’s case, it could also paralyze the agency by raising the possibility that all the board’s decisions from the past year, involving about 300 cases, could also be challenged and nullified, as well as any future ones. The decision also casts a cloud over Cordray’s appointment.

Golddogs
01-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Yeah well maybe this clown should stop claiming to be an expert, some sort of I know all whatever about the constitution. The average citizen knew he violated it at the time. So enough of him being an expert.

You should kiss the ground each day for being able to make comments like this. Wonder how it would fly in your native country?

Completly Classless Regards

luvmylabs23139
01-26-2013, 11:34 AM
You should kiss the ground each day for being able to make comments like this. Wonder how it would fly in your native country?

Completly Classless Regards
AT this point I wish I had convinced DH to take the job in my native country that he was offered many years ago by my uncle. Why should I be happy to put up with the crap that goes on around here? Why oh why should I pay for someone else to leach off of me???
What am I working for?
I;m not classless I'm sick of paying thru the butt for nothing!!!Tell the leaches to go screw themselves.

Eric Johnson
01-26-2013, 12:41 PM
Here's the real nut that an appeal will have to crack. Two of the three judges took this line of reasoning.....

Article II, Section 2.....

"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. "

Note that the wording is not "...that may happen to be vacant during the recess..." but rather "...may happen during..." If this ruling stands, at least the NLRB appointments will be vacated and any future recess appointments...any...will be questionable.

The President's appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in an interesting spot. Cordray was appointed under the same guise as the 3 appointed to the NLRB. From that it would appear that his appointment will be null and void as well. A separate court case in the same court is testing this and the court would probably rule without an opinion. However, the Senate is now in session and Cordray was just appointed to the same post. So, while his prior appointment may be void, he'll now go before the Senate confirmation process. He's really in a "no man's land" at this point.

As I said in the other thread, I have a copy of the ruling if anyone wishes to have it. It's a pdf of about 45 pages.

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2013, 01:57 PM
Thanks, Eric, for adding this. This is the commentary that I had heard as well. If the vacancies occurred when the Congress was in session, then the appointments should have been submitted to Congress. The "recess appointments" would be valid if the vacancies had occurred after Congress had recessed. So, the argument would be over when the vacancies occurred.

To be accurate about the historical context, one would have to review whether other recess appointments were made under the same circumstances as the ones being challenged in court now.

luvmylabs23139
01-26-2013, 05:22 PM
The senate was not in recess.

duk4me
01-26-2013, 07:21 PM
AT this point I wish I had convinced DH to take the job in my native country that he was offered many years ago by my uncle. Why should I be happy to put up with the crap that goes on around here? Why oh why should I pay for someone else to leach off of me???
What am I working for?
I;m not classless I'm sick of paying thru the butt for nothing!!!Tell the leaches to go screw themselves.

It is sad that you are forced to live in a country that you abhor. Have no clue where your native country is but if my homeland was one iota better than the USA and I had an uncle that could give DH a job and I could get out of this place that I have nothing but disdain for, well I'd be buying a ticket.

Taking a collection regards,

Eric Johnson
01-26-2013, 08:42 PM
To be accurate about the historical context, one would have to review whether other recess appointments were made under the same circumstances as the ones being challenged in court now.

I've just finished reading the opinion. The court placed great emphasis on the difference between "a recess" and "the Recess". They found nothing about "a recess" of 2-3 days that would warrant such an appointment.

They also recognized that similar appointments had been made in the past but since the question hadn't been asked before, no ruling on this is available. That's an important point. Many a judge will tell stories of sitting on the bench and want to scream, "Ask this question." so they could rule on it. That answers the press secretary's shock and awe that recess appointments have gone on for so long in this form....Nobody asked.

Dan Storts
01-26-2013, 10:11 PM
The senate was not in recess.

In the briefs this is basically the point of entire case. They were trying to maintain a session to prevent recess appointments. BO took it to a level no president has by declaring congress was in recess to make the appointments. This would be like saying that congress is in recess while on lunch. then between noon and 1PM he makes a couple of appointments over lunchtime.

There have been hundreds of recess appointments but there were none for the first 80 years and only 3 in the next 70. The real on slot of them started under FDR.

The NLRB has 5 members and it takes 3 to make a ruling. All 3 of these appointments were to this board. Boeing's move to North Carolina was probably the most notable because of the state being a right to work state. It will be interesting to see where this goes. This may be a case where Robert's says, " I am not touching this one and we are staying with the D.C ruling "

duk4me
01-27-2013, 08:33 PM
It is sad that you are forced to live in a country that you abhor. Have no clue where your native country is but if my homeland was one iota better than the USA and I had an uncle that could give DH a job and I could get out of this place that I have nothing but disdain for, well I'd be buying a ticket.

Taking a collection regards,

Must have moved back to Utopia.

smillerdvm
01-28-2013, 12:50 AM
AT this point I wish I had convinced DH to take the job in my native country that he was offered many years ago by my uncle. Why should I be happy to put up with the crap that goes on around here? Why oh why should I pay for someone else to leach off of me???
What am I working for?
I;m not classless I'm sick of paying thru the butt for nothing!!!Tell the leaches to go screw themselves.

Your earlier post was as informative on your grasp of the Constitution as this one is of your "class"

Buzz
01-28-2013, 09:19 AM
I've just finished reading the opinion. The court placed great emphasis on the difference between "a recess" and "the Recess". They found nothing about "a recess" of 2-3 days that would warrant such an appointment.

They also recognized that similar appointments had been made in the past but since the question hadn't been asked before, no ruling on this is available. That's an important point. Many a judge will tell stories of sitting on the bench and want to scream, "Ask this question." so they could rule on it. That answers the press secretary's shock and awe that recess appointments have gone on for so long in this form....Nobody asked.


Judges like Scalia would probably look at this case and consider the original intent when the constitution was written. When congress was in recess, they would be out for months at a time. Members had to travel great distance by difficult means. So, in order to conduct business the president needed the right to make appointments during recess.

What we have now is a situation where a few can block appointment to departments that they despise such as the department of labor, thus starving it of leadership and thereby neutering it. The situation is quite different, but the disruption presented by the inability to appoint staff is the same. Maybe we need to ask about the constitutionality of the farce that is sending in someone to bang the gavel in order to render another branch of the government impotent. Harry and the democrats had the opportunity to correct this situation and like the limp spine wimps that they are, they declined.

Dan Storts
01-28-2013, 09:48 AM
Freedom of speech, also in the constitution, was put in when there were only newspapers. There was not any television, phones or computers. Thus, it shouldn't apply to this form of media. Scalia would go along with this as well, right?

duckheads
01-28-2013, 09:53 AM
Judges like Scalia would probably look at this case and consider the original intent when the constitution was written. When congress was in recess, they would be out for months at a time. Members had to travel great distance by difficult means. So, in order to conduct business the president needed the right to make appointments during recess.

What we have now is a situation where a few can block appointment to departments that they despise such as the department of labor, thus starving it of leadership and thereby neutering it. The situation is quite different, but the disruption presented by the inability to appoint staff is the same. Maybe we need to ask about the constitutionality of the farce that is sending in someone to bang the gavel in order to render another branch of the government impotent. Harry and the democrats had the opportunity to correct this situation and like the limp spine wimps that they are, they declined.

Evidently it was Dingy Harry that started this little trick to block GW Bush's appointments. I heard A B Stoddard make this statement on the radio. Maybe one of our resident snopers can fact check this for me.

Buzz
01-28-2013, 10:01 AM
Freedom of speech, also in the constitution, was put in when there were only newspapers. There was not any television, phones or computers. Thus, it shouldn't apply to this form of media. Scalia would go along with this as well, right?

You would have to ask Scalia. He's the one who put the "originalist" label on himself. However, I seriously doubt he would go along with you on this...

Buzz
01-28-2013, 10:05 AM
Freedom of speech, also in the constitution, was put in when there were only newspapers. There was not any television, phones or computers. Thus, it shouldn't apply to this form of media. Scalia would go along with this as well, right?

You would have to ask Scalia. He's the one who put the "originalist" label on himself. However, I seriously doubt he would go along with you on this...


Evidently it was Dingy Harry that started this little trick to block GW Bush's appointments. I heard A B Stoddard make this statement on the radio. Maybe one of our resident snopers can fact check this for me.

I realize who started it. I didn't agree with the practice then either.

Dan Storts
01-28-2013, 12:49 PM
You would have to ask Scalia. He's the one who put the "originalist" label on himself. However, I seriously doubt he would go along with you on this...



I realize who started it. I didn't agree with the practice then either.

Like the filibustering of Supreme Count nominees, like Robert Bork. Again it is not constitutionally in my mind but it was done. The Republicans could have done this to Sotomayor. However, they would have been completely chastised.

BYW Bork ended up Borking them in the long run. Kennedy was his replacement and he is still on the court. Even though he does swing both ways sometimes.

duk4me
02-18-2013, 02:20 PM
AT this point I wish I had convinced DH to take the job in my native country that he was offered many years ago by my uncle. Why should I be happy to put up with the crap that goes on around here? Why oh why should I pay for someone else to leach off of me???
What am I working for?
I;m not classless I'm sick of paying thru the butt for nothing!!!Tell the leaches to go screw themselves.

I get so confused. I thought you grew up near Sandy Hook. Where are you from pray tell?

Pete
02-18-2013, 02:58 PM
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Please think before spewing nonsense.-Paul

His allegiance is to the world bankers,,, He bailed them out by giving them our money that they stole from us the first time . Then he printed 3 trillion and gave them some more. He is a TRAITOR by definition
,,,well now that I think about it ...,,he actually isn't,,,he is not a U.S. citizen,,, he has always belonged to a global society. So he is being true to his nature
Pete