Posted on 06/26/2014 7:06:44 AM PDT by navysealdad
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has limited a president's power to make temporary appointments to fill high-level government jobs.
The court said Thursday that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he invoked the Constitution's provision on recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I don’t disagree. Sad when it’s come to the point where it’s even a possibility you’re about to lose your freedom of religion.
Let them enforce it.
Obama will ignore it.
Exactly. He knows they can’t enforce it, so he’s just laughing at this decision.
The Hobby Lobby decision will come Monday.
Say anything you want about it ... it’s a ruling nonetheless and it was ignored. The precedent is there.
I agree that Reid will take immediate action to nuclear option the rest of [non-judicial] appts.
But I think he’ll consider it well. Any change will carry over to republican control eventually. He risks a lot by giving Rs the power he is desiring.
He may do it then change it back. That would be fun to watch. Everything he does helps the Tea Party and damages the GOPE.
That’s a good question. I approach it from the opposite angle though: where in the Constitution does it forbid states from seceding? Because remember, at least the way it was originally written, the Constitution said “other than the powers enumerated herein, all rights are hereby reserved to the states, and the people” (paraphrased from memory)
So to me, that seems like there would need to be an amendment to the Constitution, at least at the time of the Civil War, that explicitly prohibited states from seceding from the Union, to make it “unconstitutional”. Otherwise that right is reserved for the states and the people.
Again I don’t know I’m no Constitutional scholar. Maybe we should ask Obama this question. < /sarc >
You are right, the courses cannot enforce the limits on the presidential appointments, but neither can the President enforce regulatory power of the illegitimate appointee.
I’m not a supporter of these particular Freepers, but I’ll warn you ... they’ll call you an idiot for not going along with them ... :-) ...
The Hobby Lobby decision will come Monday.
*********************************
Thanks.
The actions against a self-declared “nation” which declared that the Constitution did not apply to them are not by definition unconstitutional. The court of that time took no further actions nor did the congress or anyone else take any active actions to force Lincoln to withdraw anything.
He did not allow the confederacy and their SC sympathizers to have it both ways; to ignore the Constitution yet demand it be applied to them.
I’ve been called names by idiots like secessionists in the past; doesn’t bother me. Not enough to convince me to follow them down the rabbit hole to hell and failure.
If the GOP takes over the Senate, my fear is that they will rescind the nuclear option.
The US Supreme Court decision that Lincoln ignored didn’t say secession was Unconstitutional. I don’t believe I said that.
I guess my point would be that the Presidents do whatever they can “get away with” - to the extent of whether someone can actually stop them or not.
You have it upside down. The Constitution only authorizes the federal government to do certain things. Everything else is a power of the States, or the right of the people.
Governments have powers. People have rights.
/johnny
I used to think it was cowardice but am now inclined to think of it as complicity.
Yeah that would embolden TEA Party and discourage GOPE. The "see, I told you so" thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.