A federal court, three-judge panel slammed some of Barack Obamas recess appointments from last year as unconstitutional. This sent a message to the White House that is fraught with Constitutional implications.
According to The Washington Times today, Jan. 25, 2013, the federal judicial panel ruled that presidential appointments made by the president when Congress has left town just for a few days or weeks are unconstitutional. Those times were referred to by the judicial panel as “intrasession appointments.”
The panel indicated that the presidents’ power to apply recess appointments can only be applied after Congress has adjourned for a recess that signals the end of a long work period. It means that the president may only use his powers of recess appointments after Congress stops business at the years end, not between sessions that may be interrupted by holidays and the like.
The case came about when the president appointed three individuals to the Labor Board using his recess powers. The new board made a ruling that a bottling company did not like and sued the NLRB under the pretense that the appointments were unconstitutional. The judges agreed.
The Washington Times, which did not supply their source for the quotes by the judges reported that the three-judge panel said the following.
“The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,” the judges wrote.
“Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”
It will be a long haul for this issue to come to final fruition and will more than likely wind up being heard by the Supreme Court.
Greg Abbott, the Attorney General of Texas, posted a press release in support of the court decision in this case, he said;
“We remain a nation of laws, not of men. That fundamental American principle applies to the President just as everyone else. Today’s decision strengthens our nation by reaffirming the limits imposed by the Constitution. The separation of powers instilled in our Constitution must be followed, and no one – not even the Obama Administration – is above the law.”
Obama has also gained some recent notoriety for his use of executive orders, most recently after the massacre in Conn., and now some feel the need to challenge those executive orders because they do not believe that they are constitutional either.
© 2013 by Jake Jones
Scientists searching for ‘evil gene’, are you ready for your ankle bracelet?
Magazine names Texas state of the year
Should Biden be intoxicated over prospect of a presidential run?
Attacked by security guards for taking pictures at Miami-Dade rail system
Free speech suppressed during inauguration parade
Blame the shooter, not the guns says Remington employee