Court Says Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, there are some intelligent judges left. I know, because they used the same reasoning I did months ago when this issue came up.

I love being right! And I love it when the courts knock back the government. We need more of this.

Here's part of the article:

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.

And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.

But the court said in the ruling that its duty was not to speed up government, but to hold to constitutional principles.

“If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands,” the judges wrote.

Presidents of both parties have used the controversial power in recent decades, but the three-judge panel said they concluded that that was not what the founders intended that.

“The dearth of intra-session appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote. “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

The judges said the recess power was created for a time when Congress met only a few months out of the year, and was designed for the president to fill vacancies during the long periods when Congress was out. In modern times, when Congress is almost always capable of meeting, the recess powers should be more circumscribed.

The rest of the article is here:

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2J0zREkuC

[EXTXOILMAN]

Finally a court with some balls to start shutting this fucker down.

[timpage]

Well, there's one more court that may have a say-so about whether you were "right" or not.

Looks like a result-oriented decision from a group of republican appointees. But, so it goes.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, there are some intelligent judges left. I know, because they used the same reasoning I did months ago when this issue came up.

I love being right! And I love it when the courts knock back the government. We need more of this.

Here's part of the article:

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.

And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.

But the court said in the ruling that its duty was not to speed up government, but to hold to constitutional principles.

“If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands,” the judges wrote.

Presidents of both parties have used the controversial power in recent decades, but the three-judge panel said they concluded that that was not what the founders intended that.

“The dearth of intra-session appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote. “Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

The judges said the recess power was created for a time when Congress met only a few months out of the year, and was designed for the president to fill vacancies during the long periods when Congress was out. In modern times, when Congress is almost always capable of meeting, the recess powers should be more circumscribed.

The rest of the article is here:

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2J0zREkuC

[CuteOldGuy]

If SCOTUS overturns this, they will be wrong, not me.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

Well, there's one more court that may have a say-so about whether you were "right" or not.

Looks like a result-oriented decision from a group of republican appointees. But, so it goes.

Doesn't look that way at all. There have to be some llimits on the power of POTUS.

You better hope this decision is upheld. Otherwise, POTUS can make appointments at 3 AM when everybody is sleeping and say "Well, you weren't in session, so it it legal".

Do you want the GOP to have that power when they have the presidency?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If SCOTUS overturns this, they will be wrong, not me.

Sure. Have you even read the opinion? Absurd....all of it turns on the smacking of a gavel in senate chambers and the definition of "in session". Fucking game-playing by the republicans. Upheld by republican appointed judges.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Doesn't look that way at all. There have to be some llimits on the power of POTUS.

You better hope this decision is upheld. Otherwise, POTUS can make appointments at 3 AM when everybody is sleeping and say "Well, you weren't in session, so it it legal".

Do you want the GOP to have that power when they have the presidency?

The GOP has made more than their fair share of these type of appointments. The dems just weren't smart enough to have someone go into an empty senate chamber and smack the gavel down so they could pretend they're actually in session.

[CuteOldGuy]

Both parties should stop, and adhere to this Court's ruling. This court was right. The power to make recess appointments arose when Congress only met a few months per year, and transportation back to Washington to approve an appointment when not in session was not feasible. Now all the power is used for is to sneak controversial appointments past congress. Both parties have abused this power. Both need to stop.

This court was dead on right in their analysis. It's refreshing to see.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

The GOP has made more than their fair share of these type of appointments. The dems just weren't smart enough to have someone go into an empty senate chamber and smack the gavel down so they could pretend they're actually in session.

So, apparently, two wrongs DO make a right. Is that what you are saying?

The executive branch has accrued far too much power over the years. And lazy Congresses have gone along with it.

Words have meaning, including "in session". It does NOT literally mean when Congress is in its chambers.

Otherwise, presidents could make "recess" appointments when Congress breaks for lunch.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible just because it favors your guy.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Stop trying to defend the indefensible just because it favors your guy.

Good luck with that request.

Some people are simply rabid partisans who undertake ridiculously over-the-top efforts to defend anything their guys do!

[JD Barleycorn]

Timpage, do you want to retract or alter your statement "The GOP has made more than their fair share of these type of appointments." Do you really know how many have been made by both parties? Can you tell what constitutes "fair"? By the way, who controlled the Senate when Obama made this "recess" appointment?

This is not about stopping Obama but about that little phrase in the Constitution "Advise and Consent". It is the job of the Senate to advise and consent to presidential appointments. They have decided over the years that it means a hearing of the particular committee followed by a full vote of the senate. Also a house in not in recess until it votes that it is recess and that never happened. So the Senate was not in recess and any president could not make a "recess" appointment.

[awl4knot]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Timpage, do you want to retract or alter your statement "The GOP has made more than their fair share of these type of appointments." Do you really know how many have been made by both parties? Can you tell what constitutes "fair"? By the way, who controlled the Senate when Obama made this "recess" appointment?

This is not about stopping Obama but about that little phrase in the Constitution "Advise and Consent". It is the job of the Senate to advise and consent to presidential appointments. They have decided over the years that it means a hearing of the particular committee followed by a full vote of the senate. Also a house in not in recess until it votes that it is recess and that never happened. So the Senate was not in recess and any president could not make a "recess" appointment.

Well, I don't know, but the Christian Science Monitor does and reported that Bush made 171 recess appointments and that Bill Clinton made 139. Obama has made 18. I'm not arguing whether the practice is constitutional or not, but it is damn wrong for the same troop of haters to not know the facts when they trumpet about how a court finally got it right. It would seem that the court is inferentially saying that George Bush violated the constitution 171 times during his presidency. Here's the link to the CSM article: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ake-them-often

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

Well, I don't know, but the Christian Science Monitor does and reported that Bush made 171 recess appointments and that Bill Clinton made 139. Obama has made 18. I'm not arguing whether the practice is constitutional or not, but it is damn wrong for the same troop of haters to not know the facts when they trumpet about how a court finally got it right. It would seem that the court is inferentially saying that George Bush violated the constitution 171 times during his presidency. Here's the link to the CSM article: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ake-them-often

Not quite.

There is nothing Constitutionally wrong with recess appointments so long as the Congress is ACTUALLY in recess.

So, the fact that Clinton had 139 and Bush had 171 tells us nothing.

If Congress really was in recess, all of those appointments are valid.

If Congress broke for lunch and Bush made a 171 "recess" appointments while they were eating, then those appointments are NOT valid.

See the difference?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

It would seem that the court is inferentially saying that George Bush violated the constitution 171 times during his presidency.

I will read the opinion, but I will bet that's not what the opinion says. And any such conclusion would require a determination of exactly when the Bush (or other POTUS) appointments were actually made .. on the calendar.

"Haters"? What an ignorant statement to make.

Typically Judges appointed and approved by Republicans will be "strict constructionists" and construe the powers of government more narrowly than those Judge's appointed and approved by the Demoracts. As a consequence the rulings will restrict the authority of government when that is an issue, with some exceptions, of course.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If SCOTUS overturns this, they will be wrong, not me.

Don't hurt yourself patting your back.You have a winner.