If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES OBAMA’S EXTRA-SENATORIAL APPOINTMENTS INVALID
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 26, 2014) — In a unanimous decision announced on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 violated the U.S. Constitution’s restriction on presidential nominations while the Senate is out of session.
The case, Noel Canning v. NLRB, had received a similar ruling from an appellate court, but the Obama regime appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 Senate is constitutionally tasked with providing “Advice and Consent” for nominations of ambassadors, “other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” “to the executive and judicial branches.”
While the Associated Press characterized the decision as having “ruled in favor of Senate Republicans,” the issue concerned whether or not the Senate was “in recess” during three-day periods when Obama made the appointments.
The NLRB’s purpose is to “protect the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions.”
The Obama regime claimed that it had the right to make the appointments because short recesses, called “pro forma” breaks of the Senate, were put in place by Senate Republicans to “stop the board from functioning.”
However, the court opined that three-day breaks of the Senate are not “of sufficient length” to constitute a true recess. Obama had appointed three members to the NLRB and Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Writing for The Washington Post, constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler stated that the court’s ruling upheld the right of the Senate to decide when it is in recess, not the chief executive. “None of the justices were willing to accept the position of the Obama Administration, which was unnecessarily extreme,” Adler said.
The New York Times reported that the court’s ruling “cut back on the president’s power,” but the opinion states that “the Senate’s rules make clear that during its pro forma sessions, despite its resolution that it would conduct no business, the Senate retained the power to conduct business.”
The court also said in its opinion that the “separation of powers” set forth in the Constitution by the Framers “exists for the protection of individual liberty.”
In response to the high court’s ruling, the NLRB issued the following statement:
The Supreme Court has today decided the Noel Canning case. We are analyzing the impact that the Court’s decision has on Board cases in which the January 2012 recess appointees participated. Today, the National Labor Relations Board has a full contingent of five Senate-confirmed members who are prepared to fulfill our responsibility to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. The Agency is committed to resolving any cases affected by today’s decision as expeditiously as possible.
Two years ago at this time, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that Obama’s “signature legislation,” Obamacare, could be upheld as constitutional if it were considered to be a tax. During oral argument, however, neither side argued that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine as a tax. Following the announcement of the ruling, CBS News reported that Chief Justice John Roberts had been set to rule against the constitutionality of the law and that the other four “conservative” justices were dumbfounded as to why he changed his mind within 30 days of the announcement of the ruling to the public.
Speculation abounds that Roberts was coerced as a result of information gleaned from NSA spying which the regime might have threatened to use against him.
Other constitutional violations of which Obama has been accused are myriad and include:
- using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to harass political opponents;
- singlehandedly delaying elements of Obamacare from political expediency
- declaring through executive order that children brought to the U.S. by their illegal-alien parents could remain in the country
- “Launching an illegal war in Libya”
- Violations of the First Amendment, specifically, freedom of speech and exercise of religious beliefs
- Claiming “executive privilege” to avoid turning over to Congress documents relating to the Fast & Furious gunrunning operation which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and a U.S. Border Patrol agent
- Carrying out deadly drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad suspected of terrorist activity
- Unilaterally declaring the new federal minimum wage
- Gathering phone records of journalists without their knowledge or that of their employers
- Allowing the incursion of tens of thousands of illegal aliens bearing communicable diseases to include gang members over the southwest border
It is as yet unknown whether or not Obama has violated Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility, which requires that the nation’s chief executive be a “natural born Citizen.” Claiming a mother from Kansas and a father with Kenyan citizenship, Obama does not meet the historical definition of the term, although the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has attempted to rationalize why he qualifies.
In May 2010, a member of the Supreme Court said that they were “evading” the question of Obama’s presidential eligibility.
There remains doubt about his birthplace, life narrative, and parentage. A criminal investigation carried out over more than two years on the long-form birth certificate image presented publicly on April 27, 2011 on the White House website determined that the image is a “computer-generated forgery.”
On Tuesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner signaled that he is considering filing a lawsuit against Obama for constitutional violations.
Members of the House of Representatives have said that there are “probably” enough votes in that legislative chamber to approve Articles of Impeachment against Obama.