25 Jan

Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!

                                       

obama-tearing-up-constitution

A federal appeals court has ruled that the recess appointments made by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board last January violated the Constitution. Why? Because there was no recess:

The [National Labor Relatinons] Board conceded at oral argument that the appointments at issue were not made during the intersession recess: the President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued. Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. Because the Board lacked a quorum of three members when it issued its decision in this case on February 8, 2012, its decision must be vacated.

The court basically took a much more narrow view of “recess” which undercuts many appointments made by Presidents. It’s a huge change but well reasoned:

A third alternative interpretation of “the Recess” is that it means any adjournment of more than three days pursuant to the Adjournments Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, AS: 5, cl. 4 (“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days . . . .”). This interpretation lacks any constitutional basis. The Framers did not use the word “adjournment” in the Recess Appointments Clause. Instead, they used “the Recess.”

…In short, we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession recesses.

and:

Although our holding on the first constitutional argument of the petitioner is sufficient to compel a decision vacating the Board’s order, as we suggested above, we also agree that the petitioner is correct in its understanding of the meaning of the word “happen” in the Recess Appointments Clause. The Clause permits only the filling up of “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 3. Our decision on this issue depends on the meaning of the constitutional language “that may happen during the Recess.” The company contends that “happen” means “arise” or “begin” or “come into being.” The Board, on the other hand, contends that the President may fill up any vacancies that “happen to exist” during “the Recess.” It is our firm conviction that the appointments did not occur during “the Recess.” We proceed now to determine whether the appointments are also invalid as the vacancies did not “happen” during “the Recess.” …

Our understanding of the plain meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause as requiring that a qualifying vacancy must have come to pass or arisen “during the Recess” is consistent with the apparent meaning of the Senate Vacancies Clause. The interpretation proffered by the Board is not. …

In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of “happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess.

And now it will go to the Supreme Court:

The Obama administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

But if the ruling is upheld, it would invalidate scores of decisions that the labor board has made since last January.

The board would be left with just one validly appointed member — its chairman, Mark Gaston Pearce — who was confirmed by the Senate. Under a 2010 Supreme Court decision, the labor board, which has five seats, is authorized to issue decisions only when it has three or more sitting members.

It gets better. If this ruling is upheld, and it may very well, it not only invalidates all the pro-union decisions made by the board it also scratches Richard Cordray’s appointment to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Double whammy!

But eh…Obama will ignore this ruling has he has done so many times in the past. Just shut up and pay your taxes dummies…don’t you know the government is broke?

Update

Good question:

Donald Berwick, formerly the head of Medicare, was a recess appointee. (Obama made the appointment to prevent Berwick from having to testify during confirmation hearings about his support for NHS-style health care rationing.) He was key in the Obamacare/Medicare promulgation process during his tenure. If recess appointments generally are invalid constitutionally–except after formal adjournment–might this decision impact rules promulgated under Medicare while Berwick was unconstitutionally in charge? I am asking, not opining, because I don’t know.

Update

Another key part of the decision:

To adopt the Board’s proffered intrasession interpretation of “the Recess” would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure reflected in the Appointments Clause. As the Supreme Court observed in Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, “The manipulation of official appointments had long been one of the American revolutionary generation’s greatest grievances against executive power, because the power of appointment to offices was deemed the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism.” 501 U.S. 868, 883 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In short, the Constitution’s appointments structure — the general method of advice and consent modified only by a limited recess appointments power when the Senate simply cannot provide advice and consent — makes clear that the Framers used “the Recess” to refer only to the recess between sessions.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, Law, Politics, POWER GRAB!. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, January 25th, 2013 at 10:35 am
| 415 views

12 Responses to Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Was it D. Berwick who slipped the harsh anti-smoking clauses into ObamaCare?

    http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130125/PC1601/130129566/1005/new-health-care-law-might-penalize-smokers-as-insurers-could-charge-them-up-to-50-percent-more

    The Affordable Care Act allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

    For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

    …government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.

    ReplyReply
  2. joetote says: 2

    What, the so called “Constitutional Law Professor” that inhabits the White House had his actions held as Unconstitutional? How can this be. Isn’t he the most brilliant man ever to be President? Doesn’t he know more about constitutional law than let’s say someone like that know nothing Robert Bork? I’m shocked, literally shocked that a Federal Court would in fact overrule His Royal Majesty! Or am I missing something here?

    Seriously, it’s about damned time this guy’s feet were pulled out from under him. His open disdain for the constitution is evident! At last, he is reminded (for the moment) that even the President is not above the law of the land! Sad part is, does anyone think he gives a flying f… as to the law of the land as it pertains to him?

    ReplyReply
  3. Let’s hope the appeal to the Supreme Court doesn’t drag on until His Highness gets to appoint another Justice or two.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    The White House on Friday expressed strong disagreement with a court ruling that the president’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution.

    “The decision is novel and unprecedented,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Friday’s briefing. “It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations.”

    He added: “We respectfully but strongly disagree with this decision.”

    Yeah, that didn’t take long.
    Sometimes words mean what they mean….words like ”co-equal.”
    Obama thought his branch of gov’t was more equal than the other two put together.

    ReplyReply
  5. Kalashnikat says: 5

    So all the cases brought to the board for decisions during this period are vacated with a resulting total waste of both taxpayer and private resources…that’s really grand…

    I’d imagine that most, if not all, were pro-union and anti-enterprise…would be interesting to see a summary of the effects of this decision…

    ReplyReply
  6. Nan G says: 6

    And the hits just keep on coming!
    Another federal appeals court* ruling just canceled a mandate from the Environmental Protection Agency that required refiners to buy cellulosic biofuels.
    Remember a long time ago I pointed out that there were NO GALLONS of this fuel available commercially?
    It was a way for the EPA to get mucho denaro for nada.
    Refiners were gong to be required to pay millions to the EPA as waiver payments for not buying a fuel that didn’t exist!
    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/01/25/court-rejects-epa-biofuel-mandate/

    *The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is the SAME court….just another ruling messing with Sasquatch (I mean Obama).

    ReplyReply
  7. Pingback: Anonymous

  8. another vet says: 7

    Fear not, Roberts will claim that the appointments as done were unconstitutional but in a 5-4 decision will decide that they constitute a tax and are therefore Constitutional.

    ReplyReply
  9. I don’t wish Roberts any bad luck, but I hope someone makes him an offer he can’t refuse, like Dean of the Law School at some prestigious university.

    ReplyReply
  10. liberal1(objectivity) says: 9

    That’s what the courts are for—to keep tabs on executive and congressional oversights. It’s happened many times in the history of this country.

    ReplyReply
  11. SPURWING PLOVER says: 10

    And they gave this outlaw president a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? SHAME ON THE PEACE PRIZE COMMITY

    ReplyReply
  12. VoteOutIncumbents says: 11

    Ran into an old friend last week, now retired. A liberal Democrat. I asked his reaction to this ruling.
    He’d never heard of it. The man has a PhD in history and prides himself on keeping up with the “news”.

    Of course…he only watches ABCBSNBCNN…but (he says) “I listen to NPR, and if it were important they would have covered it”.

    He never heard of it.

    This is what we are up against. The GOP MUST take on the leftwing media!!! For Pete’s sake…somebody at the RNC has to call these people out.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>