IS THE JUDICIARY FINALLY TAKING A STAND FOR THE CONSTITUTION?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jan. 25, 2013) — A federal appeals court three-judge panel issued a ruling on Friday stating that Obama committed a constitutional violation when he appointed a new head of the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was still in session.
A total of four “recess” appointments are in question and have been challenged in cases still pending before the court. The appointments were made on January 4, 2012, at which time Obama had contended that the Senate was not in session, but January 3 is designated as the last day of a congressional session prior to the new Congress being sworn in after an election. Three were appointed to the National Labor Relations Board, and the fourth was Richard Cordray, who was appointed to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
One of the four so appointed resigned before serving a full year. Obama renominated Cordray on Thursday, one day before the ruling was announced.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that “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.”
The day after the appointments were made, Republican Senators hinted that they would file a lawsuit over the matter, which the media suggested “could backfire.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defended Obama’s actions in making the nomination and insisted that “This is one court, one case, one company.” Given the ruling, major media are now inquiring as to the validity of the more than 200 regulations issued by the board since the appointments were made in early January of last year.
Obama-supportive websites described the opinion of Judge David Sentelle as “radical.” Sentelle ruled that a break of minutes or hours did not constitute the Senate as having been officially out of session and declared the appointments “invalid from their inception.”
Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch lauded the decision, while Democrat Tom Harkin said that “Obama had no choice but to act.” The Justice Department reportedly advised Obama prior to making the appointments while “pro forma” sessions were held during the Christmas break.
The Associated Press reported that the three judges on the panel are “conservative” and were “appointed by Republican presidents.”
The U.S. House of Representatives released a report in late October which termed Obama’s occupation of the White House “an imperial presidency” and referenced litigation over his “recess” appointments last January. Of the four appointments, Majority Leader Eric Cantor wrote:
When the Senate did not approve four of his nominees to two regulatory agencies – the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) – President Obama took the unprecedented step of declaring that the Senate was in recess – even though it wasn’t – and invoking his interim appointments power.
Seating the head of the CFPB and a quorum for the NLRB allowed both agencies to begin promulgating regulations that would have otherwise have been on hold until the President and the Senate came to agreement on filling the vacancies.
The President’s unconstitutional acts are now the subject of pending litigation by those negatively impacted by the new rules and determinations published by these agencies.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and others have accused Obama of violating the Constitution’s Separation of Powers doctrine. Meese told Newsmax that Obama could “easily” face impeachment if he tried to enact gun control measures by executive order.
Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum accused Obama of violating the system of “checks and balances” put in place by the Framers of the Constitution.
The premise of an unconstitutionally-installed executive’s actions becoming null and void has been raised by many who have questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, which reads:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
While Obama released what he claimed was a long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011 online, documents and typesetting experts immediately found it to be a forgery. An investigation carried out by the Cold Case Posse in affiliation with the Maricopa, AZ County Sheriff’s Office concluded that the image was computer-generated and did not originate from a paper document. To date, Congress does not appear to have launched an investigation.
The U.S. Justice Department had accused Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio of abuse of power and then abruptly dropped the investigation on August 31, 2012.
Similarly, Obama’s short-form birth certificate released during his first presidential campaign and his Selective Service registration form have been described as forgeries. He appears to be using a Social Security number issued in the state of Connecticut, where he never worked or lived. A name associated with the same Social Security number indicating a birth date of 1890 has raised questions as to why Obama is using the number.
Whether or not Obama was born in the United States is just one of the alleged barriers to his eligibility which citizens have raised. He claims to have had a father who was a citizen of another country, and many constitutional scholars believe that the citizenship of the parents determines that of the child as well as the child’s allegiance.
Obama has been accused of treason by several military veteranss and other citizens. A congressman from Texas pledged to draft Articles of Impeachment if Obama attempted to eviscerate the Second Amendment by signing executive orders mandating new gun control measures without congressional approval. Another congressman had stated that any decision Obama might make to commit U.S. troops to combat operations without congressional approval would be grounds for impeachment.
Many citizens have called for Obama’s impeachment along with a constitutional attorney who drafted an Article of Impeachment after Obama invaded Libya without the approval of the legislative branch after the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011. A Quo Warranto case challenging Obama’s qualifications filed by Montgomery Blair Sibley is currently in front of the same court which ruled the four appointments unconstitutional.
After the Obama regime sent four F-16 fighter jets and billions of dollars in aid to Egypt, which is now led by a member of a declared enemy of the United States, The Muslim Brotherhood, renewed calls for Obama’s removal from office on the grounds of treason have been made.
To date, more than 100 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve as president have been rebuffed by various courts across the country. Two cases are scheduled to be heard in a conference of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 15, 2013.
Will the Supreme Court tackle the tough questions about Obama’s identity and eligibility?
If Obama was never eligible to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution, what could happen to all of his appointments and the executive orders and bills he has signed?
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.