Obama's NLRB "recess" appointments invalid

[AustinChief]

I looked and didn't see a thread on this... you guys are dropping the ball!

So, it looks like every NLRB decision since January of 2012 will be invalidated. This is a VERY HEALTHY slap in the face to Obama's constant abuse of executive power.

Here is a great article on it

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ointments-unc/

Any thoughts?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I do adopt the living document point of view (as do a vast, vast majority of legal/Constitutional scholars, but the idea that I'm all for allowing the President to do whatever he wants.

Are you sure they're a vast majority? Either way, that doesn't make it right. Afterall, the American Revolution wasn't started and implemented by a vast majority either. In fact Europe laughed at our idea of a limited Republic.

I am sure that vast majority, you allege, suffer from the some lust for power and are in the pockets of those who want to use govt for their own ends. Government and it's minions, cannot be trusted to judge where the powers end and begin. This is an age old and timeless problem.

Please name them, and allow the other side to name those who disagree with them. I take it you'll cite Laurence Tribe or someone. I assure you, that if you read the notes from the original Convention and some statements from some of the ratifying conventions—you can't possibly take the view of any "living Constitution" scholar the way it's been used as a living document. There's even Constitutional scholars, who support abortion, but feel Roe v Wade was bad law.

Boom. Constitution circumvented.

The president was intended to be the weaker of the branches with far less powers delegated to that branch than the others. The president does NOT get to decide if the Senate is in recess or in a pro form session. That's for the Senate to decide whether or not the president thinks it's BS or not.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

This is a perfect example of clause made largely obsolete over time. Because of travel and communication issues of the late 18th century, when Congress went into recess, it would do so for 6 months or even longer. Vacancies actually did occur during the recess and needed to be filled. Now, travel and communication are easy and the longest recess is a few weeks in the summer. These pro forma sessions are a complete sham. These appointments should be a 50/50 yes or no vote and the minority can suck it.

Yup.

[BucEyedPea]

cosmos, nor anyone else, gets to call something obsolete on this issue because it's the senate that gets to make it's operational rules, not a president. A president cannot determine this for the senate.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

cosmos, nor anyone else, gets to call something obsolete on this issue because it's the senate that gets to make it's operational rules, not a president. A president cannot determine this for the senate.

I'm calling the operational rules (the pro forma session) a sham. I'm calling the clause in the Constitution about recess appointments obsolete.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm calling the operational rules (the pro forma session) a sham. I'm calling the clause in the Constitution about recess appointments obsolete.

You sound like Henry Hyde, when he said congress declaring war was obsolete...'er actually I believe he called it an anachorism.
You don't get to change it at will even if it's obsolete. You change it with an amendment.
Other than that, it's just your OPINION that it's a sham.

Fact is that the Senate still gets to make it's operational rules NOT the President. There is NO delegated power for the President to make such a rule change for another branch. That destroys the checks and balances, which is never obsolete—unless you want a dictatorship. Checks and balances are NOT obsolete. Taking powers is NOT obsolete which is what you are calling for.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You sound like Henry Hyde, when he said congress declaring war was obsolete...'er actually I believe he called it an anachorism.
You don't get to change it at will even if it's obsolete. You change it with an amendment.
Other than that, it's just your OPINION that it's a sham.

Fact is that the Senate still gets to make it's operational rules NOT the President. There is NO delegated power for the President to make such a rule change for another branch. That destroys the checks and balances, which is never obsolete—unless you want a dictatorship. Checks and balances are NOT obsolete. Taking powers is NOT obsolete which is what you are calling for.

So I know you can see my posts. How about responding to my calling bullshit on your repeated claims of Obama voter fraud? If not here, pick a different thread.

[BucEyedPea]

Did you say something?

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm calling the operational rules (the pro forma session) a sham. I'm calling the clause in the Constitution about recess appointments obsolete.

What's next, the 2nd Amendment?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

What's next, the 2nd Amendment?

Most of the Constitution is obsolete to these guys. It's in their way.

[Direckshun]

I don't think I'd adopt cosmo's stronger language that the clause is a "sham."

I'd just say that the practical application of it has evolved as Senatorial treatment of recesses has evolved.

I'd say the same thing about the 2nd amendment -- as our weaponry evolves, as does the application of the 2nd.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't think I'd adopt cosmo's stronger language that the clause is a "sham."

I'd just say that the practical application of it has evolved as Senatorial treatment of recesses has evolved.

I'd say the same thing about the 2nd amendment -- as our weaponry evolves, as does the application of the 2nd.

Then change it legally not usurp rules, laws and amendments

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

Then change it legally not usurp rules, laws and amendments

We do. We also can often change it through executive action. We also change it judicially constantly.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

We do. We also can often change it through executive action. We also change it judicially constantly.

WoW! That's unConstitutional and you're all for it. Courts doing it is called judicial activism aka legislating from the bench when that power was delegated to the legislature...and you're for that too.

JFC we need a neutron bomb for internal enemies in this country. We should just ignore your right to any due process beforehand as well because we can change it. Or would that be a right to stopping a imminent attack. We passed that danger point years ago.

[AustinChief]

From an article a year ago right after this ridiculous travesty happened.

Not only was the Senate not in recess when these purported appointments were made, it constitutionally could not have been.

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.

The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting “pro forma” sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly “pro forma” session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”


It does not matter one whit that most members of Congress are out of town and allow business to be conducted by their agents under unanimous consent procedures, because ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred and could not have occurred without the consent of the House.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ichard-cordray

BOOM. Going to be tough to get around this.

Oh and just a nice bonus... this also invalidates Cordray's appointment as the first head of the CFPB, which probably means that every action taken by them is now invalid.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't think I'd adopt cosmo's stronger language that the clause is a "sham."

I'd just say that the practical application of it has evolved as Senatorial treatment of recesses has evolved.

I'd say the same thing about the 2nd amendment -- as our weaponry evolves, as does the application of the 2nd.

I didn't call the clause a sham. I said the pro forma sessions are a sham. The clause I said was obsolete.