Posted on 06/26/2014 9:25:49 AM PDT by Marie
Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. Theres only one problem.
The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments.
Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesnt get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does.
This is the first time in U.S. history that the Constitutions recess appointment clause has been challenged, as no former president has attempted to usurp powers as wannabe dictator, Barack Obama.
The respondent in the case was Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola distributor, who claimed that the NLRB lacked a quorum because three of the five Board members had been invalidly appointed by Obama. Canning was being forced by the NLRB into entering a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.
*He broke the law. Give him a fair trial and a fair sentence to be served in a federal prison. *
Orange overalls in his future?
The trial as to whether the president broke the law or not has concluded 9-0 he is GUILTY of a high crime, not a misdemeanor.
Impeachment should be an automatic process at this point.
This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama Administrations calls for greater federal executive power.
Great! When do they perp-walk his hiness and corrupt band of thugs out of our whitehouse?
The decision was 9-0 that these particular appointments were invalid, but the grounds of the decision were WAY narrower than the lower court.
The D.C. Circuit had held that the recess appointment power can only be used during the recess between one Congress and another (not during recesses in the middle of one Congress), and only if the vacancy happens during that recess. That decision would have, in effect, ended the recess appointment power entirely. (It also meant that all of the recess appointments made during the past 100 years were unconstitutional.)
Today's decision just says that the President can't make a recess appointment at a time when the Senate says it's in session. It strikes down these appointments, but leaves Obama and future presidents much more room for making recess appointments than the lower court would have.
You do know that Obama will just double down on stupid now
how can this be, wasn’t Obama a teacher of the Constitution at the college level?
That the Supreme Court found some governmental action to be unconstitutional is not the same thing as saying that someone is guilty of a crime. Or do you think that every member of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act belongs in prison?
Many people think that WWII got us out of the Depression. Others point to Supreme Court rulings against some of FDR’s New Deal policies and a Republican Congress before we got involved in the war to be key. Everything else obama has done has been eerily similar to FDR (see the long article in my tagline). Hopefully the end will be similar as well, with this ruling as a start.
.... So ... When did Obama ever care if he adheres to the Constitution. And what happens next ....do the appointees stay?
Actually til 2018, when their current terms expire ... that's when it will get interesting ...
You are delusional if you think a Republican Senate is going to impeach zero. McConnell has never stood up once against the DEMS and I don’t expect him to to anything if the Republicans win back the Senate either. He’s an a** kisser for the regime, and can only fight against conservatives.
BTTT!
“That the Supreme Court found some governmental action to be unconstitutional is not the same thing as saying that someone is guilty of a crime. Or do you think that every member of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act belongs in prison?”
I never said he committed a crime. I said he broke the law. To be more specific Constitutional law, which is the body of law which defines the relationship of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. This has nothing to do with criminal law.
Then why did you say he should be sentenced to federal prison?
Personally I have no interest where he is incarcerated. Just that he is.
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.