Obama's NLRB "recess" appointments invalid

[AustinChief]

I looked and didn't see a thread on this... you guys are dropping the ball!

So, it looks like every NLRB decision since January of 2012 will be invalidated. This is a VERY HEALTHY slap in the face to Obama's constant abuse of executive power.

Here is a great article on it

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ointments-unc/

Any thoughts?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

And this is the problem. Recess appointments are not MEANT to be used as leverage over the Senate. PERIOD. It is clear in the Constitution what the framers meant and I doubt the Supreme Court will go against the Constitution on this.

It's not at all beyond the scope of what the framers intended.

The framers intended there to be a measure when (a.) appointments needed to be made (b.) for quite some time and (c.) the Senate wasn't in session.

This fits all three of those conditions. The fact that it's an elongated debate causing this vacancy, or the intrasingence of a minority, is immaterial.

Edit: At the time the Constitution was written, they also did not intend for there to be 1,400 positions that the Senate would demand to be approved. Things change, conditions evolve, and that's why the Constitution was written so vaguely and is considered a living document.

[Direckshun]

And so far it's just been us talking.

This is what I meant when I thought it wouldn't generate any interest. But at least somebody else knows the signficance of this.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And so far it's just been us talking.

This is what I meant when I thought it wouldn't generate any interest. But at least somebody else knows the signficance of this.

Which is weird, this is a pretty huge deal. I'm really surprised no one else seems to care about it.

[dmahurin]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Which is weird, this is a pretty huge deal. I'm really surprised no one else seems to care about it.

I care about it and agree with you but I'm not well versed enough in this area to attempt to argue my side of it so ill just sit back and nod my head in agreement to most everything you say in this thread.

[A Salt Weapon]

I'd be curious to find out how many of these "appointments" were kickbacks in exchange for being reelected.
Posted via Mobile Device

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I'd be curious to find out how many of these "appointments" were kickbacks in exchange for being reelected.
Posted via Mobile Device

I sincerely doubt there were any kickbacks. Obama is a lot of things but flat out corrupt like that is not one of them IMHO.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I sincerely doubt there were any kickbacks. Obama is a lot of things but flat out corrupt like that is not one of them IMHO.

nope as pure as the driven snow

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I sincerely doubt there were any kickbacks. Obama is a lot of things but flat out corrupt like that is not one of them IMHO.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Here's the choice SCOTUS will have to make:

Exercise an absurdly strict definition of "recess" and make appointments of 1,400 government officials nigh unworkable if a Senate minority says so.

or

Exercise a reasonable interpretation of "recess" and allow the President to occasionally fill positions in the face of Congressional obstinance.

Just remember, this will apply when a Republican is in office too.

[DementedLogic]

This is what the Constitution says.

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.

This is how politicians have been reading it to abuse their power.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

This is how Direckshun wants it interpreted, the "living document" interpretation.

Any president named Barack Obama can do whatever the **** he wants.

If you have ever been part of an organization with by-laws, officers, and a board, you would know that there is normally a way to fill vacancies during a time when it is not possible for the normal means of filling vacancies, and the vacancy needs to be filled with urgency. That is what the constitution is allowing for, and this is not what happened in January 2012, or for most recess appointments in history.

The SCOTUS should rule that the president may only fill positions that become vacant during the Recess, during the Recess.. This would remove one of the many ways that presidents have been usurping the constitution for decades.

[FishingRod]

I don’t and didn’t like the previous appointments but, if the President can just decide the senate is in recess whenever he feels like it, then they are irrelevant and subservient to the executive branch. The president becomes an emperor. I don’t want this or any of the following Presidents to have that kind of power.

I know people don’t think these things through but, for those that love this president and think all his motives are altruistic please remember he doesn’t get to be President next time and sooner or later we will have a mean old conservative in the Oval Office.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Just remember, this will apply when a Republican is in office too.

So? Unreasonable obstructionism is unreasonable obstructionism, regardless of which party's doing it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

This is what the Constitution says.

This is how Direckshun wants it interpreted, the "living document" interpretation.

I do adopt the living document point of view (as do a vast, vast majority of legal/Constitutional scholars, but the idea that I'm all for allowing the President to do whatever he wants is transparent bullshit. If you want to go full retard, by all means continue to take a shit on that.

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

If you have ever been part of an organization with by-laws, officers, and a board, you would know that there is normally a way to fill vacancies during a time when it is not possible for the normal means of filling vacancies, and the vacancy needs to be filled with urgency. That is what the constitution is allowing for, and this is not what happened in January 2012, or for most recess appointments in history.

I don't see why not.

I assume you don't think the NLRB is remotely important at all. Because if you do, you understand that you need people actually running the damn thing.

If the Senate minority has sworn to block all appointments, to such an extent that they will gavel in fake sessions to prevent recess appointments, then action needs to be taken.

That's what this is.

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

The SCOTUS should rule that the president may only fill positions that become vacant during the Recess, during the Recess.. This would remove one of the many ways that presidents have been usurping the constitution for decades.

The fact that you think this would resolve the issue shows your naivete to the subject.

Under this hilariously stupid idea, the President can just encourage his appointees to wait until recess to step down.

Boom. Constitution circumvented.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

I don’t and didn’t like the previous appointments but, if the President can just decide the senate is in recess

Let me stop you right there.

Do you know what a pro forma session is?

Please describe it.

[cosmo20002]

This is a perfect example of clause made largely obsolete over time. Because of travel and communication issues of the late 18th century, when Congress went into recess, it would do so for 6 months or even longer. Vacancies actually did occur during the recess and needed to be filled. Now, travel and communication are easy and the longest recess is a few weeks in the summer. These pro forma sessions are a complete sham. These appointments should be a 50/50 yes or no vote and the minority can suck it.