The President is not a King in the
USA
Nor are his appointed advisors of
similar people like him
Supreme
Court Curbs President’s Power to Make Recess Appointments
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on
Thursday said President Obama had violated the Constitution when he bypassed
the Senate to appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board during a
brief break in the Senate’s work.
But the larger message of the
court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by
its four more liberal members, was that there is a role for recess appointments
so long as they are made during a recess of 10 or more days.
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with
the result in the case but issued a caustic concurrence from the bench. “The
majority practically bends over backwards to ensure that recess appointments
will remain a powerful weapon in the president’s arsenal,” he said.
The decision affirmed a broad ruling last year from a federal appeals court in Washington that
had called into question the constitutionality of many recess appointments by
presidents of both parties.
The immediate practical significance
of Thursday’s decision was undercut by the Senate’s recent overhaul of its
filibuster rules and by the Senate’s confirmation of a different slate of
nominees to the labor board. Republican filibusters had frustrated the Obama
administration and prompted its recess appointments.
But the constitutional ruling,
involving the balance of power between the president and the Senate, was
nonetheless momentous.
The Constitution’s
recess-appointments clause says, “The president shall have power to fill up all
vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”
Analyzing that language, a
three-judge panel of the appeals court last year said that presidents may
bypass the Senate only during the recesses between formal sessions of Congress.
Two of the judges went further, saying that presidents may fill only vacancies
that arose during that same recess.
The case arose from a labor dispute
involving a soft-drink bottling company, Noel Canning. The labor board ruled
against the company, saying it had engaged in an unfair labor practice by
refusing to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.
The company appealed, arguing that
the labor board had been powerless to rule because a majority of its members
had been appointed during a 20-day stretch when the Senate was convening every
three days in pro forma sessions without conducting any business. Since the
members of the board were not properly appointed, the company argued, its
ruling was void.
In asking the Supreme Court to
review the appeals court’s ruling in the case, National Labor Relations Board
v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, the Obama administration sought an answer to only
the broader questions decided by the appeals court. But the Supreme Court,
acting on the suggestion of the company that had won before the appeals court,
agreed to answer a narrower question, too: whether the president may make
recess appointments when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma
sessions.
The administration said long
tradition supported its position, noting that presidents of both parties have
made many appointments in breaks during sessions of Congress. When the case was
argued in January, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. asked the justices
not to “repudiate the constitutional legitimacy of thousands of appointments by
presidents going back to George Washington.”
For
the whole link go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
Posters
comments:
1)
I have ordered some extra freeze dried beef,
just in case.
2)
I
have ordered some extra TVP (textured vegetable protein), just in case. TVP is
basically American high tech soybean product.
3)
All
I want to do is live to include my Family doing OK if times get hard.
4)
Since
I personally believe we have too many people on the earth, there are better
ways to solve the problem that the present elected and appointed people want to
do.
No comments:
Post a Comment