WND EXCLUSIVE
Court says Obama violated Constitution
Congressman: Correct response would be for appointees to step down
Published: 11 mins ago by Bob Unruh
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the correct next step in a fight over Barack Obama?s ?recess? appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board would be for them to step down.
The comment came today after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Obama failed to follow the Constitution when he made the appointments under a recess appointment procedure even though Congress was not in recess.
Issa, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said. "The president, who taught constitutional law, should?ve known better."
He continued, "As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama?s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses. Today, we know that it is American workers who are going to pay the price for the administration's arrogant miscalculation."
He said, "Today's ruling will certainly cause other opinions unconstitutionally issued by the board to be invalidated. To avoid further damage to the economy, the NLRB must take the responsible course and cease issuing any further opinions until a constitutionally sound quorum can be established. The unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and step down."
He said his committee has examined the unconstitutionality of the president's recess appointments and the repercussions that his decision to bypass the Senate confirmation process for NLRB appointees would have on the troubled agency.
He said it's largely uncharted territory.
In a statement at the time the review was done, Issa said, "If the United States Senate can pass a bill and send it to the president for his signature, it is clearly not in recess. But a 'recess' is exactly what President Obama has argued in justifying four recent appointments."
The members named to the NLRB were Richard Griffin Jr., Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn.
The issue was that the Senate, although not meeting every day, did meet regularly, and did not announce a formal adjournment. Despite that, Obama simply declared the Senate in recess and made the appointments.
Said Issa, "This is not a recipe for good government and effective rulemaking " it's a recipe for constitutional crisis."
The unanimous court opinion the judges said that the Obama administration's arguments were not persuasive.
"To adopt the" proffered intrasession interpretation of "the recess" would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure reflected in the Appointments Clause. As the Supreme Court observed " "The manipulation of official appointments had long been one of the American revolutionary generation's greatest grievances against executive power, because the power of appointment to offices was deemed the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism."
That's why the "advice and consent" part of the Constitution requires Congress to approve presidential appointments, they explained.
But it's not reasonable for the president to determine when the Senate is in recess, they note.
"An interpretation of "the recess" that permits the president to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the president free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."
"The dearth of intrasession 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. 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 court continued, ?In short, the hold that "the recess" is limited to intersession recesses" The president made his three appointments " on Jan. 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued..
"The appointments were invalid from their inception."
David French, of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented House Speaker John Boehner in the arguments, said, "Today is a good day for constitutional governance. " The opinion from the D.C. Circuit is a must-read"
He said it was important that the court "has rejected the Obama administration's direct challenge to our core constitutional system of checks and balances."
The underlying dispute was about enforcement of a contract involving soft drink bottling company workers at Noel Canning, who ultimately loss out in the appeals court arguments.
Joe Hansen, of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, appeared to not accept the explanation of the judges that there was, in fact, no recess.
"This decision is misguided. When President Obama made appointments to the NLRB during a congressional recess he was merely exercising his constitutional authority," he said in a statement.
The New York Times called the rule "a blow to the administration and a victory for Mr. Obama's Republican critics."
John Elwood, who handled recess appointment issues during the Bush administration, told the Times the decision if it stands will "fundamentally alter the balance between the Senate and the president by limiting the president's ability to keep offices filled."
The White House said it disagreed with the court.
Read more at Court says Obama violated Constitution
Court says Obama violated Constitution
Congressman: Correct response would be for appointees to step down
Published: 11 mins ago by Bob Unruh
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the correct next step in a fight over Barack Obama?s ?recess? appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board would be for them to step down.
The comment came today after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Obama failed to follow the Constitution when he made the appointments under a recess appointment procedure even though Congress was not in recess.
Issa, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said. "The president, who taught constitutional law, should?ve known better."
He continued, "As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama?s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses. Today, we know that it is American workers who are going to pay the price for the administration's arrogant miscalculation."
He said, "Today's ruling will certainly cause other opinions unconstitutionally issued by the board to be invalidated. To avoid further damage to the economy, the NLRB must take the responsible course and cease issuing any further opinions until a constitutionally sound quorum can be established. The unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and step down."
He said his committee has examined the unconstitutionality of the president's recess appointments and the repercussions that his decision to bypass the Senate confirmation process for NLRB appointees would have on the troubled agency.
He said it's largely uncharted territory.
In a statement at the time the review was done, Issa said, "If the United States Senate can pass a bill and send it to the president for his signature, it is clearly not in recess. But a 'recess' is exactly what President Obama has argued in justifying four recent appointments."
The members named to the NLRB were Richard Griffin Jr., Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn.
The issue was that the Senate, although not meeting every day, did meet regularly, and did not announce a formal adjournment. Despite that, Obama simply declared the Senate in recess and made the appointments.
Said Issa, "This is not a recipe for good government and effective rulemaking " it's a recipe for constitutional crisis."
The unanimous court opinion the judges said that the Obama administration's arguments were not persuasive.
"To adopt the" proffered intrasession interpretation of "the recess" would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure reflected in the Appointments Clause. As the Supreme Court observed " "The manipulation of official appointments had long been one of the American revolutionary generation's greatest grievances against executive power, because the power of appointment to offices was deemed the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism."
That's why the "advice and consent" part of the Constitution requires Congress to approve presidential appointments, they explained.
But it's not reasonable for the president to determine when the Senate is in recess, they note.
"An interpretation of "the recess" that permits the president to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the president free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."
"The dearth of intrasession 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. 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 court continued, ?In short, the hold that "the recess" is limited to intersession recesses" The president made his three appointments " on Jan. 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued..
"The appointments were invalid from their inception."
David French, of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented House Speaker John Boehner in the arguments, said, "Today is a good day for constitutional governance. " The opinion from the D.C. Circuit is a must-read"
He said it was important that the court "has rejected the Obama administration's direct challenge to our core constitutional system of checks and balances."
The underlying dispute was about enforcement of a contract involving soft drink bottling company workers at Noel Canning, who ultimately loss out in the appeals court arguments.
Joe Hansen, of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, appeared to not accept the explanation of the judges that there was, in fact, no recess.
"This decision is misguided. When President Obama made appointments to the NLRB during a congressional recess he was merely exercising his constitutional authority," he said in a statement.
The New York Times called the rule "a blow to the administration and a victory for Mr. Obama's Republican critics."
John Elwood, who handled recess appointment issues during the Bush administration, told the Times the decision if it stands will "fundamentally alter the balance between the Senate and the president by limiting the president's ability to keep offices filled."
The White House said it disagreed with the court.
Read more at Court says Obama violated Constitution
