MonroeTalks.com > Categories > News > Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution


Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution  (Read 5017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

blue2

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12928
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2013, 01:51:33 PM »

One of the most disgusting parts of all the efforts to protect governments and citizens in foreign lands is we have soldiers coming home disfigured beyond believe and they have to beg the public for financial support.
Logged

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2013, 10:27:57 PM »

Wow...the righties sure unloaded...now I see why they're taking a cigarette break  8*

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 on Friday that President 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 Mr. 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 P. 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.

Mr. 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 Mr. Bush made 171, including those of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and two appeals court judges, William H. Pryor Jr. and Charles W. Pickering Sr.

Nearly all of those appointments would be unconstitutional under the rationale of the United States 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.” Mr. 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 Mr. Cordray’s appointment.

Mark G. Pearce, the N.L.R.B.’s chairman, said the board “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” He noted that similar questions about the recess appointments had been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

Among the decisions that could be vacated are three recent rulings in which the board has assumed a powerful role in telling companies that they cannot issue blanket prohibitions on what their employees can say on Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/business/court-rejects-recess-appointments-to-labor-board.html?_r=1&

=============================================


When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions – some lasting less than a minute – were a sham.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/obama-labor-board_n_2550788.html
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Pax

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5858
  • "keepin' the bits cool & dry"
    • Coffee and Cigarettes for Breakfast
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2013, 11:01:11 PM »

I believe if there are more mass shootings while obama is still in office there will be a ban on almost all weapons.   The government won't confiscate them but if you are caught with one you will go to jail.  Obama will ignore Congress if he has to and wait for the Supreme Court to rule.  By then he might have a liberal majority on the Court and it will become law.

   Well let me clue you in a bit, Blue, as you haven't learned much of anything useful regarding this particular topic:
1) No "American" government agent or agency has any authority to ban weapons.
2) No "American" governmental agent or agency has the authority to jail otherwise law-abiding people for weapons possession.
3) No "American" court has any jurisdiction over firearms ownership by otherwise law-abiding people.
4) "Democracy" cannot over-rule any man's unalienable right to protect his life, liberty, and property to the death, if required.
5) All of the above presuppose someone else's desire for the actuality to be otherwise, hence anyone advocating or demanding a despotic revocation of the innate right to defend oneself and one's possessions knowingly and willingly place themselves squarely in the cross-hairs of patriots' armaments.

     I hope that wasn't too wordy for your addled gray-matter to comprehend...
Logged
Qui tacet consentit! - "He who is silent consents" - Maxim of Law
"For he who would be deceived, let him." - Roman maxim
"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." -Pope St. Felix III
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit.
Ryht æðelo biþ on ðam móde, næs on ðam flæ-acute

Pax

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5858
  • "keepin' the bits cool & dry"
    • Coffee and Cigarettes for Breakfast
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2013, 11:21:14 PM »

Yes I do have high regard for our Military and those that serve in it.

  Oh please do explain!  How do you define "our" military and how is it, exactly, you hold these fictitious beings worthy of such "high regard?"
Logged
Qui tacet consentit! - "He who is silent consents" - Maxim of Law
"For he who would be deceived, let him." - Roman maxim
"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." -Pope St. Felix III
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit.
Ryht æðelo biþ on ðam móde, næs on ðam flæ-acute

Monroe Native

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22335
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2013, 06:34:29 AM »

  Oh please do explain!  How do you define "our" military and how is it, exactly, you hold these fictitious beings worthy of such "high regard?"

Some of the finest people I know and have met serve or have served in the Military.

Think about it Pax - you volunteer to get shot at for bull****, and it pays ****.

Logged
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it.
Lyndon B. Johnson

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Lyndon B. Johnson

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4385
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2013, 04:43:26 PM »

Someone is having a bad week.

Second appeals court invalidates Obama's NLRB recess appointments

more at:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/second-appeals-court-invalidates-obamas-nlrb-recess-164150.html?ml=po_r


A second appeals court has joined the D.C. Circuit in ruling that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, concluding that some board actions taken in the wake of those appointments were also invalid.

The issue has far-reaching implications for both the NLRB and other boards, including Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been a frequent target of conservatives and whose director was a recess appointment.

The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions. The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.
Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4385
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2014, 04:21:11 PM »


Another 9-0 decision.   President Obama has started to unite the Judicial Branch.

Supreme Court strikes down Obama recess appointments

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347.html

In a rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court struck down three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional.

The decision Thursday gives the Senate broad power to thwart future recess appointments, but did not go as far as some conservatives hoped to undercut the president’s ability to fill vacant executive branch posts and judicial slots.

The court ruled 9-0 that Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body.
Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

SMASH

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4863
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2014, 04:38:47 PM »

The Black Robed Menace decides El Presidente Soetoro broke some clause in the now defunct and suspended U.S. Constitution.

So what's the big deal?

Their decision does not undue the FACT that this Nation is ran under the War Powers Act and The Rule of Necessity, all decisions made by the Presidente' are already authorized and confirmed by Congress and all fifty of the sitting Governors of the States. This has been so since 1933.
All he has to do is stop playing **** foot with the bozos in the Court and Congress and do EVERYTHING by Executive Order, and there is nothing they can do about it.
Logged

SidecarFlip

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24102
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2014, 09:46:27 PM »

I wonder why he hasn't up to now.
Logged
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

SMASH

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4863
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2014, 04:21:29 PM »

I wonder why he hasn't up to now.
Oh, he has. Look up his list of EO's so far.
Logged

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2014, 06:37:15 AM »

Oh, he has. Look up his list of EO's so far.
Much less than his predecessors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Appears FDR had the highest number.

America needs another FDR.


====

The Dirty Politics Behind The Supremes Decision To Limit Recess Appointments

"In a rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court struck down three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional.

The decision Thursday gives the Senate broad power to thwart future recess appointments, but did not go as far as some conservatives hoped to undercut the president's ability to fill vacant executive branch posts and judicial slots.

The court ruled 9-0 that Obama's appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGG2Tok_3js
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Federal appeals court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2014, 12:13:32 PM »

Boehner Will Sue Obama For Stuff He Thought Was Totally Fine Under George W. Bush

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) confirmed Wednesday that he will file a federal lawsuit challenging the executive actions of President Barack Obama, despite supporting President George W. Bush’s extensive use of executive authority.

Boehner said at a news conference, “You know the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws.” He added that the suit was “about defending the institution in which we serve” because “what we’ve seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch.” He refused to say which specific actions he believes to be illegal.

President Obama has issued about 180 executive orders — a power that has been utilized by every president since George Washington except for the brief-tenured William Henry Harrison — and taken other executive actions. A Boehner spokesman denounced these as “a clear record of ignoring the American people’s elected representatives and exceeding his constitutional authority, which has dangerous implications for both our system of government and our economy.”

But Boehner embraced the power of a Republican president to take action, even at times when he would circumvent Congress by doing so. President George W. Bush’s issued hundreds of orders of his own over his eight years in office. In 2001 and 2007, Boehner strongly supported unilateral actions by Bush to prevent embryonic stem-cell research involving new embryos, saying the 2001 decision “preserves the sanctity of life and allows limited research that could help millions of Americans suffering from life-threatening diseases.” He endorsed a 2008 Bush executive order to limit earmarks. In the final days of Bush’s second term, he even wrote to the president asking him to use an executive order to exempt a historic steamboat from safety regulations after Congress opted not to do so.

Boehner even pushed for administrative compliance with one of President Obama’s executive orders. In 2010, he asked Obama for a progress report on implementation of an executive order banning taxpayer funding for abortion in Obamacare. In a letter to then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, he noted that the order had “paved the way” for the law’s passage and that the lack of update on implementation “does little to diminish widespread skepticism about the administration’s commitment to enforcing the Executive Order and preventing the law law from increasing federal support for abortion.”

While the president has limited power to act via executive order — the U.S. Supreme Court has even suggested that it would hold one of President Obama’s most controversial executive actions.

As of February, Obama had issued fewer executive orders than all but one of the other presidents since World War II.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/25/3453244/boehner-executive-order-suit/
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up