Labor Appointments are Unconstitutional

Personally, I hope the Republicans stand fast on EVERYTHING this Obamunist has done.

Mr Obama.....we have a Constitution for a reason......how about you stop trying to rewrite it.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews]Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional | Fox News[/url]

And not even a PEEP about this on CBS, MSNBC, CNN.........

Imagine that.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;507042]And not even a PEEP about this on CBS, MSNBC, CNN.........

Imagine that.[/QUOTE]

Give it a REST!

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;507042]And not even a PEEP about this on CBS, MSNBC, CNN.........

Imagine that.[/QUOTE]

Imagine what? You posting something about CNN that's not true? That's no surprise.
[url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/25/appeals-court-rules-obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional/]Appeals court rules Obama recess appointments unconstitutional ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/url]

From the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

I understand FOX News has an opening for a commentator. As I know this has been a long term dream of one or our (highly regarded) (Cough...Coug..Co...) board members, I encourage him to submit his resume ASAP.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;507049]Imagine what? You posting something about CNN that's not true? That's no surprise.
[url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/25/appeals-court-rules-obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional/]Appeals court rules Obama recess appointments unconstitutional ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/url][/QUOTE]

This is HUGE news, and it barely gets a line. Yea, I found it too.....JUST now, but it surely took a while.

Go find it on their front page........it should be on the front page, instead of the silly garbage that is on their front page.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4665[/ATTACH]

Bottom left corner of the above image..........court dings Obama. Like I said.......FAIR AND BALANCED.

I will give you this though. At least CNN is covering it. MSNBC won't touch it.

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=jcb;507053]From the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with recess appointments.......sometimes they are necessary.

The senate was not in recess, that is why they are unconstitutional. Did you EVEN read the article??

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;507060]I have no problem with recess appointments.......sometimes they are necessary.

The senate was not in recess, that is why they are unconstitutional. Did you EVEN read the article??

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]

"A federal court's ruling Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution with recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board..."

That's in the lede paragraph. The statement about "senate not in recess" above is what the argument is about, pro forma sessions.

[QUOTE=FlyLie;507048]Give it a REST![/QUOTE]

NOPE........I prefer the Constitution to be upheld........

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;507066]NOPE........I prefer the Constitution to be upheld........[/QUOTE]

Most of the senate was not in attendence,so technicnically he was wrong.This posts another problem, how many senators are arequired to pass a vote?

[QUOTE=kygorski;507105]Most of the senate was not in attendence,so technicnically he was wrong.This posts another problem, how many senators are arequired to pass a vote?[/QUOTE]

Does not matter.............there are official rules for recess and not in recess. The Senate made it clear to the Administration they were NOT in recess.

THEN, with no one around, the Obamunist in Chief decided to "slip" these "recess" appointments past. It didn't work and folks were rightly pissed.

Here is the reasoning for the ruling, and I quite frankly agree:
[I]
"
The court case turned on whether the Senate was in recess when Mr. Obama made the appointments during a holiday break early last year. The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.

But Republican lawmakers held minutes-long meetings every few days, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that meant the chamber was technically in session.

While the plaintiff's case centered on those sessions, the court went a step further, declaring that Mr. Obama's appointments fell outside the bounds of his authority. It ruled that the Constitution's description of a recess refers only to the period between the roughly yearlong formal "sessions" of Congress, rather than during an effective break in proceedings. In this case, the Republicans contend Congress started a new session on Jan. 3, and Mr. Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4.
"

[/I]