Will the Supreme
Court admit Obama broke law?
President's actions
called 'unprecedented power grabs' By
Bob Unruh
President Obama’s three
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year were ruled
unconstitutional by an appeals court, but the appointees are still in place as
the dispute moves to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Obama’s recess
appointments are unprecedented power grabs, which if left to stand will turn
the constitutional separation of powers on its head,” said Tom Fitton,
president of Judicial Watch, which has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the
case. “Unfortunately, these recess appointments are one of many examples of
this president acting outside of his constitutional authority. We hope the
Supreme Court reminds President Obama that he is not above the law,”
said Fitton, whose organization describes itself as a watchdog on the federal
government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that
the January 2012 appointments were unconstitutional, because the U.S. Senate was not in
recess at the time.
Judicial Watch joined with
the Allied Educational Foundation in the brief, which charges the president’s “alleged
recess appointments to the NLRB are unconstitutional for the primary reason
that the Senate was in session at the time of the purported appointments.” “The
president’s declaration that these sessions were invalid disregards the
Senate’s authority to determine and administer its own procedures, including
when it will recess and how it will conduct its business,” the Judicial
Watch/AEF brief argues. “The Senate alone can determine when it will hold
session in conformity with its obligations and delegated powers by the
Constitution.”
WND reported earlier on the case when the
appeals court ruled the appointments violated the law. At the time, Rep.
Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the correct next step in the dispute would
be for the appointees to step down. Issa, the chairman of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, chided that the president, “who taught
constitutional law, should’ve known better.
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,” Issa said. He said the ruling made the decisions from the
board itself suspect.
“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,” he
said. “The unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right
thing and step down.”
In a statement at the time
the review was conducted, Issa said that if the 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,” Issa said.
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, met regularly and did not announce a
formal adjournment. Nevertheless, Obama declared the Senate in recess and made
the appointments.
“This is not a recipe for
good government and effective rulemaking – it’s a recipe for constitutional
crisis,” Issa said. In the unanimous court opinion, the appellate judges said the Obama
administration’s arguments were not persuasive.
“To
adopt the … proffered intra-session interpretation of ‘the recess’ would wholly
defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure
reflected in the Appointments Clause,” the court said.
The Supreme Court
previously has said 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.’”
Because of the potential
for abuse, the “advice and consent” part of the Constitution requires Congress
to approve presidential appointments, they explain. Judicial Watch said there should
be no confusion regarding the intent of the Founders.
Furthermore, the brief
argues, the Senate sets its own rules. Obama’s flouting of the constitutional requirements has
been cited as one of many reasons to impeach him.
No comments:
Post a Comment