Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!

[Publius1787]

If you are using Scalia, say so...not everyone remembers everything in the decision word for word.

A statement standing defense is weak. Roberts' wrote out his reasoning and he cited and explained...you just disagree...but your claim is bogus...

Funny you've made the assessment that I haven't read The ruling while I was summarizing Scalia from the start. If I had noted so in the beginning I wouldent have had nearly the satisfaction as I do now.

Try and be coy. You are being a tool and playing games again. This time instead of going off on Soviets, Communists, leftists, collectives, you stumble upon :"Aha! I fooled you."

You were summarizing somebody. The minority opinion as if it were law and god's word.

Your summary must be flawed because to say what you have is silly and untrue.

Read Roberts' opinion...it IS the law

Fee - Penalty - Tax

Smilies, lol's, and words like "fooled" are all I need to see when taking into account the mental state and maturity of the person on the opposite side of the forum. Thy are self comforting gestures designed to comfort those who know their arguement is weak. The more often they are used the weaker their arguement and the more they rely on them in leu of a legitamet statement. Keep comforting yourself, your obviously going to need it. Let me know when you can live without and I will be the first to welcome you to the realm of reason and reality. Between logic and emotion, however, liberals have always been more fond of the latter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What a wast of time. I figured you and I would be well into the weeds of this opinion by now but you've yet to scratch the surface. I'm willing to bet your scrolling up and down the opinion as I type attempting to find new information to add to an argument that I am wageing via memory. And yet no matter how many times I ask, you cannot tell me what kind of tax the individual mandate is. Dodging that question is revealing because Roberst didn't even attempt to answer it and I know that to be the case; but do you? You see, there are only a limited number of taxes allowed by the US Constitution. The individual mandate falls under none of them.,

Oh I see

what KIND of tax as laid out...

scrolling up and down is terrible? notes? Do lawyers ... good lawyers and teachers and speakers not use notes when discussing exactly what others have written? You puzzle me. Your blowhardness is not unique, but it is revealing. In know you from somewhere or at least I know your type.

Roberts in his own words is not good enough for you?

Your parlor games are only amusing for so long. I can you you giving VFW Hall lectures on why all taxes after FDR are unConstitutional and how the 'people' are the militia and yada yada

Roberts addressed the power to tax

 

[Publius1787]

The penalty. It is levied on those who choose NOT to participate in the shared responsibility. The penalty is not universal and it is only mandated that deadbeats pay it

See? there are times one can use a term without being a complete ideological moron...it's a joke: deadbeats

And out comes the phrase "shared responsibility." I was unaware that I was responsible for the healthcare of another. Once again, a great example of individual liberty sacrificed for the collective and implemented by the power of an unlimited government. See, liberals do indeed beleive there is no power that the government cannot wield.

 

[Publius1787]

What a wast of time. I figured you and I would be well into the weeds of this opinion by now but you've yet to scratch the surface. I'm willing to bet your scrolling up and down the opinion as I type attempting to find new information to add to an argument that I am wageing via memory. And yet no matter how many times I ask, you cannot tell me what kind of tax the individual mandate is. Dodging that question is revealing because Roberst didn't even attempt to answer it and I know that to be the case; but do you? You see, there are only a limited number of taxes allowed by the US Constitution. The individual mandate falls under none of them.,

Oh I see

what KIND of tax as laid out...

scrolling up and down is terrible? notes? Do lawyers ... good lawyers and teachers and speakers not use notes when discussing exactly what others have written? You puzzle me. Your blowhardness is not unique, but it is revealing. In know you from somewhere or at least I know your type.

Roberts in his own words is not good enough for you?

Your parlor games are only amusing for so long. I can you you giving VFW Hall lectures on why all taxes after FDR are unConstitutional and how the 'people' are the militia and yada yada

Roberts addressed the power to tax

And what kind of tax is it? ... .... ... .... .... ..... .. .. . . . . . . ....... EXACTLY!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Smilies, lol's, and words like "fooled" are all I need to see when taking into account the mental state and maturity of the person on the opposite side of the forum. Thy are self comforting gestures designed to comfort those who know their arguement is weak. The more often they are used the weaker their arguement and the more they rely on them in leu of a legitamet statement. Keep comforting yourself, your obviously going to need it. Let me know when you can live without and I will be the first to welcome you to the realm of reason and reality. Between logic and emotion, however, liberals have always been more fond of the latter.

Maybe you are projecting your former actions before you became such an advanced poster?

All my life I was accused of laughing at inappropriate times and seeming to not take serious persons seriously.

You have no clue. Your skills at feeling out my character and attitudes are poor to shitty.

We've hijacked this thread and for that I apologize, but you really do take yourself too seriously. You're really not all that bright. Oh, I'm sure you have a good memory and you try really really hard to impress...but that is a sign of your weakness.

back on topic: Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[
And what kind of tax is it? ... .... ... .... .... ..... .. .. . . . . . . ....... EXACTLY!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!​

By: Curt

[IMGhttp://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-tearing-up-constitution.jpg[/IMG]​

A federal appeals court has ruled that the recess appointments made by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board last January violated the Constitution. Why? Because there was no recess:

The [National Labor Relatinons] Board conceded at oral argument that the appointments at issue were not made during the intersession recess: the President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued. Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. Because the Board lacked a quorum of three members when it issued its decision in this case on February 8, 2012, its decision must be vacated.​

The court basically took a much more narrow view of “recess” which undercuts many appointments made by Presidents. It’s a huge change but well reasoned:

A third alternative interpretation of “the Recess” is that it means any adjournment of more than three days pursuant to the Adjournments Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, AS: 5, cl. 4 (“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days . . . .&#8221. This interpretation lacks any constitutional basis. The Framers did not use the word “adjournment” in the Recess Appointments Clause. Instead, they used “the Recess.”​

…In short, we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession recesses.​

and:

Although our holding on the first constitutional argument of the petitioner is sufficient to compel a decision vacating the Board’s order, as we suggested above, we also agree that the petitioner is correct in its understanding of the meaning of the word “happen” in the Recess Appointments Clause. The Clause permits only the filling up of “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 3. Our decision on this issue depends on the meaning of the constitutional language “that may happen during the Recess.” The company contends that “happen” means “arise” or “begin” or “come into being.” The Board, on the other hand, contends that the President may fill up any vacancies that “happen to exist” during “the Recess.” It is our firm conviction that the appointments did not occur during “the Recess.” We proceed now to determine whether the appointments are also invalid as the vacancies did not “happen” during “the Recess.” …

Our understanding of the plain meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause as requiring that a qualifying vacancy must have come to pass or arisen “during the Recess” is consistent with the apparent meaning of the Senate Vacancies Clause. The interpretation proffered by the Board is not. …

In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of “happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess.​

And now it will go to the Supreme Court:

[Excerpt]
Read more:
Court Rules....

Interesting, but how does this address the shredding of the Constitution accusation?

Is every instance where a President overreaches a shredding of the Constitution or are you making partisan points here?

Could you seriously discuss battles over the view people have of the powers each branch of government has, and when one infringes into the areas reserved to another?

 

[Liability]

Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!​

By: Curt

A federal appeals court has ruled that the recess appointments made by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board last January violated the Constitution. Why? Because there was no recess:

The [National Labor Relatinons] Board conceded at oral argument that the appointments at issue were not made during the intersession recess: the President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued. Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. Because the Board lacked a quorum of three members when it issued its decision in this case on February 8, 2012, its decision must be vacated.​

The court basically took a much more narrow view of “recess” which undercuts many appointments made by Presidents. It’s a huge change but well reasoned:

A third alternative interpretation of “the Recess” is that it means any adjournment of more than three days pursuant to the Adjournments Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, AS: 5, cl. 4 (“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days . . . .”). This interpretation lacks any constitutional basis. The Framers did not use the word “adjournment” in the Recess Appointments Clause. Instead, they used “the Recess.”​

…In short, we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession recesses.​

and:

Although our holding on the first constitutional argument of the petitioner is sufficient to compel a decision vacating the Board’s order, as we suggested above, we also agree that the petitioner is correct in its understanding of the meaning of the word “happen” in the Recess Appointments Clause. The Clause permits only the filling up of “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 3. Our decision on this issue depends on the meaning of the constitutional language “that may happen during the Recess.” The company contends that “happen” means “arise” or “begin” or “come into being.” The Board, on the other hand, contends that the President may fill up any vacancies that “happen to exist” during “the Recess.” It is our firm conviction that the appointments did not occur during “the Recess.” We proceed now to determine whether the appointments are also invalid as the vacancies did not “happen” during “the Recess.” …

Our understanding of the plain meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause as requiring that a qualifying vacancy must have come to pass or arisen “during the Recess” is consistent with the apparent meaning of the Senate Vacancies Clause. The interpretation proffered by the Board is not. …

In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of “happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess.​

And now it will go to the Supreme Court:

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Court Rules Obama ?Recess? Appointments Unconstitutional! | Flopping Aces

It shocks and offends President Obama that any Court would dare to uphold the Constitution and, in the process, say "no" to him.

It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS, too, cares to adhere to the Constitution anymore.

 

[Liability]

I hasten to add that it wasn't just Pres. Obama who has used this ridiculous ploy. As noted here [ Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - WSJ.com ] both W and Bubba did it too.

'Bout time the "practice" got reigned in.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liability...no thread is able to escape your ability to pull it down to imbecility

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Jeffrey Rosen and Jack Rakove .. ever read their stuff? Opinion of teach?

this too shall be revisited

D

Just received another copy of: Original Meanings: Politics And Ideas In The Making Of The Constitution: by Jack Rakove

I've long been a drifter, and later/recently a brief stint as a nomad. Holding on to material belongings was given up long ago. So it's a treat to get a new copy

 

[BackAgain]

Liability...no thread is able to escape your ability to pull it down to imbecility

Even before Dainty had that hilarious coma, he was a douche.