It's Official: Obama violated the Constitution

[rightwinger]

Can impeachment be far behind?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unions are at their lowest membership in 76 years. The GOP has clearly been doing a great job bringing back the robber barons and abolishing the middle class. This should give them a much needed boost :sarcasm:

BLS: Labor Union Membership Lowest in 76 Years - The ITT List

Idiot.

Folks don't join unions because they make an informed decision not to.
Why do you Leftists always imagine you know better than the individual making the decision?



Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 91% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports?)


Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 91% know about union membership that the 9% don’t? One can only conjecture.

Dumbass conservative.

What part of "middle class income decreases as unions are weakened" do you not understand. Do you acknowledge that conservatives want to destroy unions? Did you forget that unions were created for a reason? Do you fail to see the ridiculously widening gap between rich and poor?

Link:
(Yes it's huffington post but the OP does not deserve for me to spend my time looking up sources for such a simple concept.)
BLS: Labor Union Membership Lowest in 76 Years - The ITT List

1. "Do you acknowledge that conservatives want to destroy unions?"

No.

Because I'm conservative, I value the freedom of assembly guarantee of the first amendment.

2. "What part of "middle class income decreases as unions are weakened"
Not true.
Obama policies are responsible for any such weakening. Proof? Sure....look at the difference in the same time frame under Reagan's policies.


3. Now, here's the part where we prove that you are an idiot:
"Did you forget that unions were created for a reason?"
I provided a link showing that non-union members have no desire to join unions.
You didn't respond to same.

QED....Idiot.

 

[TheOldSchool]

1. "Do you acknowledge that conservatives want to destroy unions?"

No.

Because I'm conservative, I value the freedom of assembly guarantee of the first amendment.

2. "What part of "middle class income decreases as unions are weakened"
Not true.
Obama policies are responsible for any such weakening. Proof? Sure....look at the difference in the same time frame under Reagan's policies.


3. Now, here's the part where we prove that you are an idiot:
"Did you forget that unions were created for a reason?"
I provided a link showing that non-union members have no desire to join unions.
You didn't respond to same.

QED....Idiot.

March 2011
"Would you rather be in a union at your job, or not in a union?"

In a union: 43%
Not in a union: 48%
No preference: 6%
Unsure: 3%

Link: Work

3. I'll start with that one because it's the stupidest. There's my response to your poll. You can find a poll to support anything. And I wouldn't trust an internet poll that that comes from a favorite pollster of the Drudge crowd.

1. Republicans, or conservatives, are very vocal about their opposition to unions and collective bargaining. How do you reconcile your answer of "no" to wanting to destroy labor unions with the views of the ideology you support?

2. As I recall Reagan did a whole lot more for the wealthy than for the middle or lower class. Where are you getting your info from? As for Obama we'll see what his legacy is. He whupped the repugs a few months ago so he must be doing something right.

 

[kiwiman127]

"I'm sure PC will include her comments and outrage at all previous administrations and she continues on with her rage."

Oh...man!

This is when it's the most fun!!!!

When one of you falls into the trap!
I was hoping someone would demand that!!!!




"Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Now....can you provide the names of "all previous administrations" which ran on the basis of "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."


How ya' like me now, boooooyyyeeeeee???

Ha! Like you had planned the said "trap" before you wrote your little as usual partisan OP! I'm pretty sure that's a load of bullshit and you seem think we all fell off the turnip truck with you!

Well, the court has ruled that Obama's appointments were unconstitutional. Being a self-proclaimed "constitutional scholar", sorta odd that he does so many unconstitutional actions.

Oh, I don't disagree at all with your comment.
It's just that PC's alleged "trap" is rather exaggerated and is an afterthought in response to my response!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Do you acknowledge that conservatives want to destroy unions?"

No.

Because I'm conservative, I value the freedom of assembly guarantee of the first amendment.

2. "What part of "middle class income decreases as unions are weakened"
Not true.
Obama policies are responsible for any such weakening. Proof? Sure....look at the difference in the same time frame under Reagan's policies.


3. Now, here's the part where we prove that you are an idiot:
"Did you forget that unions were created for a reason?"
I provided a link showing that non-union members have no desire to join unions.
You didn't respond to same.

QED....Idiot.

March 2011
"Would you rather be in a union at your job, or not in a union?"

In a union: 43%
Not in a union: 48%
No preference: 6%
Unsure: 3%

Link: Work

3. I'll start with that one because it's the stupidest. There's my response to your poll. You can find a poll to support anything. And I wouldn't trust an internet poll that that comes from a favorite pollster of the Drudge crowd.

1. Republicans, or conservatives, are very vocal about their opposition to unions and collective bargaining. How do you reconcile your answer of "no" to wanting to destroy labor unions with the views of the ideology you support?

2. As I recall Reagan did a whole lot more for the wealthy than for the middle or lower class. Where are you getting your info from? As for Obama we'll see what his legacy is. He whupped the repugs a few months ago so he must be doing something right.

"By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."


In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown.

There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.

But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?"

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Obama has violated the Constitution,,,,,, just like most previous presidents.
Now this isn't an excuse, it's just a sad fact.
Less we forget, the left went berserk on GWB when he violated the Constitution,,particularly with his "War on Terror".
For your reading pleasure. I'm sure PC will include her comments and outrage at all previous administrations and she continues on with her rage.

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution
Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution - WSJ.com

"I'm sure PC will include her comments and outrage at all previous administrations and she continues on with her rage."

Oh...man!

This is when it's the most fun!!!!

When one of you falls into the trap!
I was hoping someone would demand that!!!!




"Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Now....can you provide the names of "all previous administrations" which ran on the basis of "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."


How ya' like me now, boooooyyyeeeeee???

Ha! Like you had planned the said "trap" before you wrote your little as usual partisan OP! I'm pretty sure that's a load of bullshit and you seem think we all fell off the turnip truck with you!

I sure did.


When I post, I anticipate the response.


I never lie.
Ever.


And....with you as representative of the calibre of the opposition.....why would I have to?

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, this is great news..the best we've heard in long time..

I like the word impeach too

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

1. Rant?
I was merely celebrating the foot of justice on the tyrant's throat.


2. Being as inarticulate as you usually are, you've simply offered the constitutional requirements of recess appointments.

Are you actually positing that the court decision didn't reference same?

Oh....I forgot: your raison d'etre is the empty desire to be relevant.

Once again, unfulfilled.


Based on your ability, you should stick to reading the obituary column and crossing out the names from the phone book.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Ooo Poo Poo doesn't know why the numbers are there? How retarded can you be Poo Poo? You one of them Crack Babies?

I guess alll he can handle nowadays is "Short Attention Span Theater".

 

[saveliberty]

Obama's attempt to expand Executive powers has been dealt a serious blow. He'll challenged more frequently now, as he should be.

 

[kiwiman127]

"I'm sure PC will include her comments and outrage at all previous administrations and she continues on with her rage."

Oh...man!

This is when it's the most fun!!!!

When one of you falls into the trap!
I was hoping someone would demand that!!!!




"Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?



Now....can you provide the names of "all previous administrations" which ran on the basis of "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."


How ya' like me now, boooooyyyeeeeee???

Ha! Like you had planned the said "trap" before you wrote your little as usual partisan OP! I'm pretty sure that's a load of bullshit and you seem think we all fell off the turnip truck with you!

I sure did.


When I post, I anticipate the response.


I never lie.
Ever.


And....with you as representative of the calibre of the opposition.....why would I have to?

^^^^^
Talk about lame!

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

1. Rant?
I was merely celebrating the foot of justice on the tyrant's throat.


2. Being as inarticulate as you usually are, you've simply offered the constitutional requirements of recess appointments.

Are you actually positing that the court decision didn't reference same?

Oh....I forgot: your raison d'etre is the empty desire to be relevant.

Once again, unfulfilled.


Based on your ability, you should stick to reading the obituary column and crossing out the names from the phone book.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Did you learn to read from reading the directions off the back of TV dinners? Why is everything always numbered?

It confuses pretend scientists who have trouble counting above two unless they can see their feet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Oh goody gumdrops, now the far right will mount an effort to impeach another President. It must frustrate the crazy right to have their agenda always stifled by a majority of the voters - it's no wonder they continue to work hard to suppress the vote and are now working to change the electoral college to their advantage.

Plutocrats are not democrats; Democrats are not Plutocrats.

I wonder how far left you have to be to view a unanimous decision of a left leaning appellate court as far right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks as if the Mods have missed the fact that three threads on this same issue have already been posted by RW trolls. So, repeating my final post on this thread should not be seen as spamming.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, what a surprise. How does the original intent of the framers - a position you hold - comport with a lesser court? How will the Supreme Court rule (5-4 most likely). So save your lectures for the fools who believe you're more than the silly troll you are.

Now answer my question. What is the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3; To Wit:

"The President shall have the Power to full up All Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate".

It seems the three conservative judges who made the aforementioned ruling disregarded 150 years of precedent and even acknowledged so in their ruling.

 

[jillian]

To the o/p....

And? Your point?

I suspect the Supreme Court will weigh in next.

And if he was wrong, that. 'S why there's judicial review.

It's not like people died because he lied to start a war or anything. Now THAT would be impeachable.

 

[jillian]

Obama's attempt to expand Executive powers has been dealt a serious blow. He'll challenged more frequently now, as he should be.

1. It's one court decision

2. Expansion of power is shrub's unitary presidency

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Please comport Article II, section 2, clause 3 with your rant.

This part?

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.

Did you read the part where those vacancies had been sitting empty for two years? Was the Senate in recess that long? Is that why there wasn't a budget?

 

[Caroljo]

1. "Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional

2. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

3. ...U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

4. ... an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.




5. The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

6. ...if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid.




7. The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members."
Appeals court panel rules Obama recess appointments to labor board are unconstitutional - The Washington Post



About time.....

....and hopes for many happy returns!

Oh goody gumdrops, now the far right will mount an effort to impeach another President. It must frustrate the crazy right to have their agenda always stifled by a majority of the voters - it's no wonder they continue to work hard to suppress the vote and are now working to change the electoral college to their advantage.

Plutocrats are not democrats; Democrats are not Plutocrats.

Nobody mentioned impeachment...but thanks for the idea! If the Dems would stop doing stupid stuff, we would have to even think about doing that!