The grand const. scholar violated the constitution

[luvmylabs23139]

The senate was not in recess.

[duk4me]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...