Court: Obama Appointments Are Unconstitutional

[Shady]

The so-called former constitutional law professor strikes again!!!

Obama appointments are unconstitutional

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that could severely curtail the president's ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

http://news.yahoo.co...QJRJVwAFA3QtDMD

This is just the latest example of Obama's distain for the constitution. He's already faced constitutional challenges to the Obamacare mandate, in which the court ignored what he said, and interpreted the act as a tax, which upheld the legislation. He's also in the process of legal challenges from religious groups that are having their constitutional rights squashed regarding contraception and abortion inducing drug coverage. And now this. He literally IS shredding the constitution, or at the very least, wiping his butt with in on a regular basis.

Now, all presidents make recess appointments, because all presidents face a congress that blocks some of their picks. It's just, normal president wait until the congress actually goes into recess to make said recess appointments. They don't "deem" congress to be in recess when they're not, and then make unconstitutional appointments. But I'm sure all of the Obama fanboys will come out in full force, defending Dear Leader. Not realizing or not caring that future presidents that they may strongly disagree with could use this same power grab if not checked at this point in time. But anything for The One!

[punked]

Want tell me what Article 27 of the Constitution says then apply it to the latest Republican debt ceiling bill? No you don't? Why? Because you hate the Constitution and know nothing about it. Great. Pot meet Shady.

[jbg]

Now, all presidents make recess appointments, because all presidents face a congress that blocks some of their picks. It's just, normal president wait until the congress actually goes into recess to make said recess appointments. They don't "deem" congress to be in recess when they're not, and then make unconstitutional appointments. But I'm sure all of the Obama fanboys will come out in full force, defending Dear Leader. Not realizing or not caring that future presidents that they may strongly disagree with could use this same power grab if not checked at this point in time. But anything for The One!

A rare disagreement with you, Shady. GWB used a recess appointment to put John Bolton in as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. I supported his choice but the tactic is time-honored.

Want tell me what Article 27 of the Constitution says then apply it to the latest Republican debt ceiling bill? No you don't? Why? Because you hate the Constitution and know nothing about it. Great. Pot meet Shady.

I am not sure what you are driving at or what it has to do with recess appointments. I think the Constitution has 7 articles and 27 Amendments. The 27th Amendment has to do with varying Congressional pay mid-term. What's your point?

If it regards suspension of pay when no budget is in effect I think it's a dubious publicity stunt. But it is not a variance of pay any more than an employer's going from Friday pay to twice-monthly pay is a variance of pay.

[cybercoma]

Now that Obama doesn't need to get re-elected the Republicans are screwed. All of the bad-faith negotiations that they've engaged in over the next year is going to come back to haunt them as Obama sticks it to them for the next 4 years.

[jbg]

Now that Obama doesn't need to get re-elected the Republicans are screwed. All of the bad-faith negotiations that they've engaged in over the next year is going to come back to haunt them as Obama sticks it to them for the next 4 years.

Not really. The Democrat's unity splinters real fast during second terms as the battle to succeed him draws near. The Democrats' support for his mad schemes will be far more fickle within months.

[punked]

A rare disagreement with you, Shady. GWB used a recess appointment to put John Bolton in as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. I supported his choice but the tactic is time-honored.

I am not sure what you are driving at or what it has to do with recess appointments. I think the Constitution has 7 articles and 27 Amendments. The 27th Amendment has to do with varying Congressional pay mid-term. What's your point?

If it regards suspension of pay when no budget is in effect I think it's a dubious publicity stunt. But it is not a variance of pay any more than an employer's going from Friday pay to twice-monthly pay is a variance of pay.

That is a the very definition of variance in pay. If your employer said "I pay you 50 000 dollars a year and know what? I want to keep that money and invest it so I will pay you once a year now on your last work day," they are taking money out of your pocket to put it in theirs. No court in the world is going to agree with you. Even Issa disagrees with you. When one of the worst Republicans thinks your plan is not what the law intends you are in the wrong. Of course you hate the Consistution so it must say what you want to say instead of what it does.

[jbg]

That is a the very definition of variance in pay. If your employer said "I pay you 50 000 dollars a year and know what? I want to keep that money and invest it so I will pay you once a year now on your last work day," they are taking money out of your pocket to put it in theirs. No court in the world is going to agree with you. Even Issa disagrees with you. When one of the worst Republicans thinks your plan is not what the law intends you are in the wrong. Of course you hate the Consistution so it must say what you want to say instead of what it does.

I consider it dubious as well. I was offering a counter-argument. Clearly the Republicans are grandstanding here. Even though the lower house is where they hold a majority their role is more akin at this juncture to the Canadian Senate; a thoughtful second look. They are probably crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

[punked]

I consider it dubious as well. I was offering a counter-argument. Clearly the Republicans are grandstanding here. Even though the lower house is where they hold a majority their role is more akin at this juncture to the Canadian Senate; a thoughtful second look. They are probably crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Which is why SCOTUS exists though right? The President, House and Senate should do what they think is rightand the voters wwant and let the courts decide on the law.

[jbg]

Which is why SCOTUS exists though right? The President, House and Senate should do what they think is rightand the voters wwant and let the courts decide on the law.

Your view sounds attractive. The only problem is that the Supreme Court generally ducks what it deems "political questions" or questions involving the internal affairs of other branches. I think the Supreme Court will find a way around dealing with this issue on the merits.