The grand const. scholar violated the constitution

[luvmylabs23139]

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]

The old axiom may apply: It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

[BonMallari]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.