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 ...
“A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President’s recess-appointment power. Moreover, the Court has not found a single example of a recess appointment made during an intra-session recess that was shorter than 10 days. There are a few examples of inter-session recess appointments made during recesses of less than 10 days, but these are anomalies. In light of historical practice, a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause...
...The broader interpretation ensures that offices needing to be filled can be filled. It does raise a danger that the President may attempt to use the recess-appointment power to circumvent the Senate’s advice and consent role. But the narrower interpretation risks undermining constitutionally conferred powers more seriously and more often. It would prevent a President from making any recess appointment to fill a vacancy that arose before a recess, no matter who the official, how dire the need, how uncontroversial the appointment, and how late in the session the office fell vacant.
Historical practice also strongly favors the broader interpretation. The tradition of applying the Clause to pre-recess vacancies dates at least to President Madison...”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf
Overall, I think this is a reasonable opinion.
That would be horrible. But it would play directly into the hands of TEA Party candidates. It would be like a vote for 0bamacare. If he were to change back, it should be only after we'd put in as many nominees under it as they had - or something similar.
But to just change it back would so play into the next elections - in 2 years.
So, what does this mean for the appointees?
Are they now unemployed?
Will they have to go thru re-screening process in the Senate?
What about any rules or regulations they have signed?
Are they now illegal?..................
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Their broad reading says the president doesn't really have to get the advice and consent of the Senate.
The only real sticking point is the decisions that they have been made by the board with illegal members. No doubt, they will have to reissue those decisions to avoid legal suits. There may still be lawsuits if people have suffered damages due to the prior board decisions.
Boy do you ever have that one correct. The FEDS are nothing unless the rights were granted to them by the Constitution and passed by the STATES.
So, really, it’s just a matter of paper shuffling.........................
No doubt Reid anticipated the decision hence the nuclear option. The Reps weak response may trigger a nuclear option for all legislation in addition to confirmations. And Reid may expand the confirmations to include those to SCOTUS.
In reading (major) past decisions, I’ve found that many were consistent with the overall public mood at the time. Today, the mood is that government power is overreaching. Roberts is said to monitor public mood because he is concerned about the court’s image. I don’t know if that is true, but it sure seemed that way in NFIB v. Sebelius.
The Dems will scream bloody murder if and when the (R) ever use the nuclear option on them.....................
Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury’s commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.
Unfortunately a constitution is only as good as the people who swear to uphold it, it is extremely rare for someone who takes that oath to live by it. They rarely are as openly defiant as President Jackson, they simply pretend to think, or in some cases maybe they actually do think that it means something entirely different from what it plainly says. In many cases those who are the most blatant in disregarding the original intent are those who serve on the courts, including all too often the supreme court. Then we have the problem of all too many voters who seem to believe that “shall not be infringed” actually means SHALL be infringed in any way that sounds good to me. Many voters also actually seem to believe in the fairy tale of the “right to privacy” which guarantees a woman “the right to choose” even though they are too squeamish to admit what she is choosing but the same people can’t find a right to any other kind of privacy even in the fourth amendment which is almost totally disregarded in many cases now.
In short “we the people” are not living up to the constitution. We have listened to those who sing the praises of “Democracy” when they should be condemning the evils of real democracy and praising a constitutional republic. The end result is that we now have a de facto democracy even though we may still have supposedly a de jure republic and we are learning anew that an actual democracy is a very BAD form of government.
I fully expect someone to come back and argue that republic and democracy are the same form of government and I am just “arguing semantics”, no problem, I know better and many others do as well. The link below is offered to those actually care about reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI
Yes, it was Jackson, after the Cherokees had won in the SCOTUS re being ‘relocated.”
then came the “Trail of Tears”
Regardless of one’s opinion on secession, the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
This is the reason a Boehner lawsuit is not a bad idea. The court has had enough of obammy. He has offended them as well, and they would work with a lawsuit. Harry Reid will never let obammy be impeached and removed... but the court may find him guilty of crimes.
‘But knowing these clowns at the 1600 Penn Ave, they will ignore the Supreme Court and their media henchmen will applaud it.’
You are probably right but in essence if Obozo tries this then he will be declaring that his entire administration is operating outside the law. If the MSM applauds it, they will be saying that they are driven by their ideology and not their duty.
Their masks will drop away and all who can see will. I hope they are stupid enough in their arrogance to do this.
“In a ruling that will constrain future presidents,”
Listen to the propaganda. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this the first president who has ever done this.
The first quote was Jackson.
To paraphrase Lincoln “There’s a war on, STFU.”
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.