Right to Work President on Court Smackdown of Obama Recess Appointments

| February 12 2013
Christopher Cook

“The President is at liberty, both in law and in conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit; and if Congress is overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution … but only because the President has the nation behind him and Congress has not.”

—Woodrow Wilson

Barack Obama follows the Wilsonian model. He has no concern for Congress, checks and balances, the Constitution, or the rule of law. He is simply trying to be “as big a man as he can,” and hoping he can overbear all opposition. It works for him a lot of the time.
But not ALL the time: Here is Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, on why the recent unanimous appeals court rebuff of Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments is a “big deal.”

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation goes on the The Blaze TV to discuss the federal appeals court ruling finding Obama’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB to violate the Constitution. The Foundation filed a brief in the case on behalf of employees.

A clear, simple, concise description of why Obama was so out of line with these recess appointments comes from Jared Olar of the Rockford Register Star:

So you know those four “recess appointments” that President Barack Obama made a little more than a year ago when the U.S. Senate was not in recess?

Well guess what? It turns out that, according to a unanimous 46-page ruling by a three-judge panel of the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s unconstitutional for a U.S. president to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess.

No, really. I’m not joking: Presidents in fact must wait until the Senate is in recess before they can make recess appointments.

They aren’t allowed to proclaim, as Obama essentially did, “The Senate says it is in session, but I want to appoint these guys who I know don’t stand of chance of Senate approval, so I hereby declare the Senate to be in recess, and will now appoint them without the advice and consent of the Senate.”

I know, it’s absolutely amazing, isn’t it? Could anyone have possibly seen that coming? A U.S. president being required to abide by the U.S. Constitution? What a curious, archaic notion!

As you might expect, Obama doesn’t like this judicial ruling very much. His press secretary Jay Carney said it was “novel and unprecedented,” which is kind of funny, because it just so happens that “novel and unprecedented” are precisely the words that one should use when describing the act of making recess appointments when the Senate is in session.

In the written opinion of the three-judge panel, Chief Justice David Sentelle said Obama’s usurpation of Congressional power was contrary to “not only logic and language, but also constitutional history.”

keep reading

0 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest