Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Shocker: 'Hanity Axed on Fox?? (Updated) | Main | Obama Tells Marines Al-Qaeda Is Near 'Defeat,' 'Decimated' »

August 8, 2013

Appeals Court Ruling, If Upheld, Restores Balance Of Power

Topics: Political News and commentaries

king-obama.png

It's a shame that those that could benefit most from the video below; the under informed voter and those who are among the slaves on Uncle Sam's plantation who choose government hand outs for their votes instead of the dignity of having a job and being free.

obama-burning-constitution-220x220.jpg

As Betsy McCaughey notes at Investors Business Daily :

On Jan. 25, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rapped the presidents knuckles for disregarding the constitutional limits on his power.

If the court's unanimous opinion, Noel Canning v. NLRB, is upheld on appeal, it will reverse the century long trend toward unfettered presidential power and breathe new life into the checks and balances the Framers devised.

The president picked this legal fight when he made three appointments to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Jan. 4, 2012. The date is important, because the president claimed to be making recess appointments.That was a whopper.

Recess appointments are a constitutional way to avoid seeking the advice and consent of the Senate. But the Senate was not in recess on Jan. 4, 2012. Not as the Constitution defines that term or even according to looser Senate rules. Lucky for Washington state Pepsi bottler Noel Canning.

Shortly after the appointments, the NLRB made a decision unfavorable to Canning. The company sued, claiming the appointments were unconstitutional and void, and without those new appointees the NLRB lacked a quorum to make any decisions.

The court ruled for Canning and against the NLRB, but more importantly, against President Obama's imperial pretensions. The ruling potentially nullifies dozens of NLRB decisions made in the past year. Never mind, said the judges. "We cannot accept an interpretation of the Constitution completely divorced from its original meaning to avoid inconveniences," the court said.

That's refreshing. The court examined each word of the Constitution's recess appointment clause (Art II, sect. 2). It is those words that were adopted by the people. When those words speak clearly, it is up to us not to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency.

Then the court turned to the Federalist Papers, written during the nationwide debate over whether to ratify the new Constitution. Alexander Hamilton assured a nation fearful of executive authority that the president would make appointments jointly with the Senate.

More here.

As McCaughey goes on to point out, the 8th Circuit's ruling conflicts with a 2010 ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide. If the 8th Circuit is upheld, it will help restore the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch, enhancing Congress's oversight of the president's management of national affairs.

It certainly looks as though we did but we may be waking up.

Crossposted (edited) from We The People Blog.

Posted by DancingCzars at August 8, 2013 12:24 PM



Articles Related to Political News and commentaries: