NLRB: We will continue to act despite the Appeals Court decision

Washington Examiner ^ | 1-25-2013 | Sean Higgins

[sheikdetailfeather]

Mark Gaston Pearce, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s DC Appeals Court decision that President Obama use of recess appointments to install three people on the NLRB last year was unconstitutional. The action renders the board without a quorum to act and potentially invalidates a year’s worth of actions and rulings by it. Pearce indicated that the NLRB will attempt to continue on regardless:

[tina07]

The laws just ain’t for them, when will we get it!!!

[tina07]

yup, how dare a ocurt rule against the dictator, off with the judge’s head, pronto!

[plain talk]

There is one other option. The House can refuse to fund the NLRB.

Given this administration blatant disregard for any rules whatsoever I am not sure that would matter. Hopefully I am wrong but it seems they could still continue with or without the House's blessings and Treasury continue to pay them. I guess my question is this ... if push came to shove could the House ... in reality ... defund anything? or would NLRB and Treasury just plow forward without a budget and without authorization and just spend money however it wishes? Who would stop them? John Boehner?

[1010RD]

Which is exactly what we want. Send this and your comments out to everyone on your email list. Publish this and retweet it over and over again.

We need to point out the neverending corruption of the Obama Administration. The Constitutional abuses must be brought to the forefront. Talk about Benghazi and all the lies and Hilary’s little show. Talk about Fast and Furious and the hundreds of Mexican dead, toss in that American Border Guard and ask them is they know his name.

In short, do everything that Romney should have done for a year.

[combat_boots]

Organizing for Action will just get the funds by asking for “donations.”

[Political Junkie Too]

It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case...

Did Roe v. Wade only apply to once specific case?

-PJ

[1010RD]

Since they didn’t enjoin it would appear they’re hoping for a swift SCOTUS review, no? If they let this go on it just gets worse, particularly if SCOTUS agrees.

[fortheDeclaration]

Courts can't enforce rulings, that is for the Executive branch or Congress to do.

Any ruling that board now makes is null and void.

[EQAndyBuzz]

This should be Boehners statement: the appeals court has ruled on the constitutionality of Obamas selections of members to the NLRB while congress was in session. If President Obama chooses to take this to the Supreme Court, congress will have no choice but to start impeachment proceedings based on high crimes and misdemeanors in violating the US constitution.

That’s it. Simple.

[tnvol01]

TOTUS says that Congress is not in session & makes a “recess” appointment.

TOTUS unilaterally initiates the DREAM Act.

TOTUS guts welfare reform.

TOTUS says War Powers Resolution does not apply to Libya.

TOTUS decides DOMA is not defensible.

TOTUS EPA goes ahead w/ Cap & Trade type regulation after it's defeated in Congress.

TOTUS FCC goes ahead w/ internet regulation after the courts say they don't have the authority.

TOTUS NLRB pushes Card Check type rules after it's defeated in Congress.

TOTUS claims executive privilege to keep Congress from documents related to Fast & Furious.

Checks & Balances - Congress keeps writing checks for TOTUS & TOTUS keeps his hand on the balances.

[SoFloFreeper]

Team Obamugabe doesn’t give a DAMN about law, courts, precedence, or public opinion that goes against their worldview.

They look at the Constitution as a tool. They’ll use it when necessary, ignore it when convenient.

ATTENTION REPUBLICAN LEADERS: DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU’RE DEALING WITH NOW?

[JimSEA]

Obama seems to agree with you. As a result he will keep pushing at the restraints of the Constitution until they are meaningless. Do the Republicans realize they are the target?

[Venturer]

Sure they will continue to act and not one thing will be done to stop them.
If the House had any balls they would cut their salaries off and we would see how long they would work for free.

[maica]

For the first time in YEARS I had Shep Smith on the tv. When he was talking with Ed Henry (who sits in the WH briefings - and obviously absorbs the Jay Carney spin) they both agreed that “Bush has done this many more times than Obama.

What ignoramuses!!!! But their soundbite and the transcript are now on record. I am so angry!!!

I remember vividly when Harry Reid invented the in-session ‘recess.’ Jim Webb drove over from VA about every three days and gavelled in the Senate, then gavelled it out again a few minutes later. I would not be surprised if that disgusted him enough to be the reason that he chose not to run for the Senate in this past election.

President Bush did have people nominated for various positions that were being thwarted by the Senate, but he did not go up against the Senate “Rule”, as Chairman maObama did.

[Venturer]

Of course they will appeal, that will take years, and if it gets to the Supreme Court, Obama still owns that court.

Thank you Justice Roberts.

[Mr. Peabody]

These people are impersonating government officials then. There’s a law about that somewhere.

[COBOL2Java]

L'Etat c'est moi

[brityank]

Pearce, in short, is indicating that the NLRB’s strategy is to act as if the court’s ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional somehow only applies only to the particular case that went before the Appeals Court and hope that the White House can get the Supreme Court to quickly review the case.

Well, Gaston - the US Supreme Court has many rulings it would have to overturn from over 200 years ago. Doubt that will happen!

 

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
      --- Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

---

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
      --- Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

---

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
      --- Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.

---

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it. "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
      --- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.

[P-Marlowe]

SCOFFLAWS!

[Wyatt's Torch]

I’m serious when I ask who would order them to go in? The GOP is too chicken s#!t to do it and the media would crucify them for following the law. They can’t hold hearing because of the same reason. Nobody will dare hold him accountable to the law. He. Does. Not. Care.