Supreme Court Unanimously Finds President Obama Violated Constitution In Use Of Recess Appointments

Supreme CourtPresident_Barack_ObamaThe Supreme Court has ruled in Noel Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1115, and found that President Obama had indeed violated the constitution in his recess appointment. The decision was unanimous. I will be discussing this and the abortion case ruling at 1pm with Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

The unanimous decision was academically gratifying because I was the lead witness in the Judiciary Committee hearing on the appointments. Roughly two years ago, I testified in Congress that the recess appointments of President Barack Obama were unconstitutional. Those four appointments by President Obama included Richard Cordray, who had been denied confirmation to a consumer protection board in a Republican filibuster. While I liked Cordray, I testified that the appointments were in my opinion clearly unconstitutional. As someone who previously testified and written that the appointments were flagrantly unconstitutional, I received a great deal of push back. I was highly critical of the work of the Office of Legal Counsel in my testimony and my writings, which advised Obama that he had this authority. See Jonathan Turley, Recess Appointments in the Age of Regulation, 93 Boston University Law Review (2013) and Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Adverse Possession: Recess Appointments and the Role of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 2103 Wisconsin Law Review (2013).It was a disappointing piece of work by an office that used to be independent and highly respected for its analysis. For prior columns, click here and here and here and here.

The decision is an important victory for the separation of powers. It will also further magnify the growing controversy over President Obama’s unilateral actions in various areas — part of his pledge to circumvention Congress to get things done. I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.

The Court finally defended the lines of separation in one of these disputes. The Court specifically rules out the type of “going it alone” approach of the President in the use of recess appointments and other Executive powers:

Regardless, the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. It simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess. Here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. See Myers, 272 U. S., at 293 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). That structure foresees resolution not only through judicial interpretation and compromise among the branches but also by the ballot box.

Here is the opinion: Canning

188 thoughts on “Supreme Court Unanimously Finds President Obama Violated Constitution In Use Of Recess Appointments

  1. How utterly bizarre that you would find a ruling from this Supreme Court so personally gratifying. You will now almost surely find yourself on the wrong side of history.

  2. At first glance, does this help Speaker Boehner with his lawsuit regarding the issue of non-justiciability of political questions?

  3. Gosh golly gee! I thought Barry O. was a professor of ConLaw at Northwestern. I’m sure he had the time as he billed about half the hours of every Caucasian or Asian associate at his large law firm. And he even managed to get the same pay! Damn, how do you think he managed that one?

  4. This is a nice big bite mark on obama, one long overdue. One would think that he might have shown some restraint, after the tea party threw the democrats out of the house. Instead, he’s put all of his chips on the table, setting the stage for a GOP president and conservative majority in both the house and senate. This guy has set himself up as the master of pissing it all away.

  5. Obama is a pathetic president, but JT is showing his bias.

    Reagan, the right’s hero, started using signing statements as an ersatz line item veto. Reagan used writings by Samuel A. Alito to justify his actions. Bush the Younger used signing statements with wild abandon.

    Why is one form of increasing the powers of the Executive Branch bad, but another form is acceptable?

  6. Why do libs always point to previous bad behavior to justify current bad behavior instead of just admitting that what is going on is bad?

  7. Gee Mr. Turley…. were you as upset at all the BS conducted by G.W. Bush? You have been quite successful today in bringing out the right wing/anti-Obama comments. Are you going to be advising Boehner on his silly lawsuit and possible impeachment proceeding?

  8. Professor Turley–

    The opinion is fresh but I hope you have time soon to address Scalia’s charge:

    “The real tragedy of today’s decision is not simply the
    abolition of the Constitution’s limits on the recess­
    appointment power and the substitution of a novel frame­
    work invented by this Court.

    It is the damage done to our separation-of-powers jurisprudence more generally. It is not every day that we encounter a proper case or contro­
    versy requiring interpretation of the Constitution’s struc­tural provisions. Most of the time, the interpretation of
    those provisions is left to the political branches—which, in
    deciding how much respect to afford the constitutional
    text, often take their cues from this Court. We should
    therefore take every opportunity to affirm the primacy of
    the Constitution’s enduring principles over the politics of
    the moment. Our failure to do so today will resonate well
    beyond the particular dispute at hand.”

  9. “@Jim22

    Why do hillbillies always assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal?”

    Why does the pot call the kettle black?

  10. But the ruling’s impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate’s ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.

    Still, the outcome was the least significant loss possible for the administration. The justices, by a 5-4 vote, rejected a sweeping lower court ruling against the administration that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments.

    The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future.

    A recess appointment can last no more than two years. Recess appointees who subsequently won Senate confirmation include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, two current NLRB members and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is among recess appointees who left office because they could not win a Senate vote.

    http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2014-06-26-US-Supreme-Court-Recess-Appointment/id-ffc425ebaf814f71b01ee9b5d731e3bb

    (Oh and to the post that said why look at past actions, those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Obama has done what other prez’s have done only because of the animus against this president it is bad when he does it but fine when Bush et al did it.
    And now Boehner wants to sue the president so the “fiscally responsible” GOP wants to waste more of the taxpayer’s money (like they did with Starr’s unfruitful waste of 70 million$ to try and find something on Clinton and Whitewater.)Funny how I don’t see people complaining about the wastefulness oftime and taxpayer dollars on the GOP’s obstruction and relentless worthless votes and time wasted on repeal for instance of the ACA0

  11. leej, The Dems have been acting like people on death row, nothing to lose! many of their myopic rule changes will be biting them in the butt in November. How about the Senate Filibuster rule change. EVERYONE but Harry Reid and the Dem Senators saw that as suicide.

  12. When it comes to asset preservation for some people, saving for the future is a foreign concept, whether it’s preserving money or political capital. Obama continues to brag about his rags-to-power story, but rather than using his success as an opportunity to be a role model for every minority, he has instead shown them all that the only right thing to do is to piss everything away. Whoever said that money can’t buy poverty, was dead wrong. That the court’s opinion is unanimous is less about what is constitutional, more about disciplining the bully in the White House. Justices that some have had no use for, suddenly are useful.

  13. Many presidents have tried to get around the separation of powers. Obama will go down in history as the president who was allowed to ignore the separation of powers and create an imperial presidency.

    And it will be really difficult to expect future presidents, of any political party, to ignore this precedent and not make similar power grabs.

  14. Professor Turley,

    Your blog is such a refreshing dose of nonpartisan, commonsense advocacy for the rule of law and constitutional self-government. Thank you for it, and for all that you do in the public interest.

    Although I am more aligned with liberal and progressive positions, I am disgusted by the increasingly shrill partisan groupthink on both sides of the aisle. It’s especially sad to see a network I’ve long watched regularly – MSNBC – descend further and further into this muck.

    This was fully on display last night in the disrespectful, smothering, partisan hack-like manner with which Steve Kornacki gave you very little time to speak about President Obama’s executive overreach, while he allowed Howard Fineman (always reliably partisan left) to dominate the conversation. Still, you handled it like the class act you are. As for Kornacki, I thought he was a little more evolved as a talking head.

  15. If Congress and taken the trouble to check him when he first ignored the law, things would not have progressed this far. And Democrats would have been perceived as fair, holding their own party to high standards. Instead, we have Democrats who ignore this behavior because it benefits their party.

    At least Boehner, who is not my favorite politician, has claimed he will file a lawsuit against Obama for failing to follow the law.

  16. The most significant thing about this opinion is that it was unanimous. Even the statists on the court have had enough of usurpation of legislative power by the executive.

  17. Prof. Turley,

    Just one question.

    Which opinion would you sign onto; the majority or the concurrence?

  18. Maybe some more pundits will grow a pair and man up like JT. The Emperor has been naked for several years now.

  19. Appreciate Turley’s views on the excesses of this Administration’s power grabs with respect to the intentions of our Constitution, but honestly, Mr. Turley, do you have to try to buy credibility by – in EVERY interview – reminding viewers/readers how you SUPPORT Obama and his policies and how you voted for him? That’s really not relevant at all to what you are saying. We get it: this admin is extreme with respect to the going it alone stuff, in quality if not in quantity of, say, exec orders. But that stands on its own, and has nothing to do with your personal politics. I’m personally gratified that an Obama supporter is actually and finally voicing these real concerns, but enough already of your disclaimers. Thanks.

  20. “Here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure.”

    **********************

    Friction? I wonder if the founders foresaw a branch of the government hellbent on bringing the entire government to grinding halt based on some skewed notion of principle or for partisan politics? Or one, that for ideological reasons, does nothing at all? How about one that frustrates the constitutional power to make such recess appointments by acting all 7-11-like and failing to close even when, of course, in reality they are closed. Or one that fails to have the votes to close an agency it doesn’t like but has the cunning to gut its mission by failing to appoint people to run it?

    Obama has made 32 such appointments. Bush II made more than 171. That holiest of holies of the Repubs, Ronald Reagan, made 232. Teddy Roosevelt made 160. Nary a peep out our conservative brethren then.

    I also wonder if SCOTUS’ approach to constitutional law makes sense in the context of a society augmented in part by a social welfare system upon which many poor and elderly rely on simply to live. How about about one where justice depends on simply having enough people showing up just to function like the NLRB which protects workers rights to organize to prevent abuses? SCOTUS may have every constitutional reason to outlaw the works of the President in getting something done through recess appointments. I wonder if they ever stop to consider the moral ones.

    Some may herald the decision as a check on Presidential excess. I see it as a prescription for more gridlock and institutional sclerosis.We can look at the big picture if we want to and praise the limited approach to governing that this decision limps along on or we can see behind the purposeful subterfuge at a faction of people dedicated to using every as pretext available in our democracy to make it stop running.

    Courts used to see things a lot better.

  21. Some want government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub. Perhaps Congessional gridlock is just the first step in the demise of our government, for those who would see it destroyed to be replaced with a theocracy, or oligarchy. How patriotic.

  22. My comments on prior posts on this subject:

    Professor Turley’s testimony before congress:

    “I have long favored the original interpretation of the Clause: that it applies only to vacancies occurring during a recess. This interpretation is truer to the Constitution and would avoid many of the controversies of modern times. I readily admit that I am in the minority on that view …”

    (from PDF of his testimony in previous post)

    What the Constitution says seems to be the minority view more and more.

    I am glad Professor Turley advocates what the text says in this case.

    (Abuse of Power).

    Now, how many recess appointments by how many previous presidents went unchallenged?

  23. mespo, you mean like refusing to negotiate to make the republicans look bad? How did that work out for you? Your’re saying previous presidents peed into the wind, and now you want to do it, too, without getting wet?

  24. Bob, Esq.

    At first glance, does this help Speaker Boehner with his lawsuit regarding the issue of non-justiciability of political questions?
    =======================
    No.

    We will get a chance to mention to him his famous harangue a while back.

    He quoted some fellow Reps as saying “I knew we would lose” when they “shut down the government.”

  25. Mespo,

    A certain president’s inability to function with congress is not license to expand executive power to act without congress.

    You’re on the wrong side of principle; and now history.

  26. Nick Spinelli

    leej, The Dems have been acting like people on death row, nothing to lose! many of their myopic rule changes will be biting them in the butt in November. How about the Senate Filibuster rule change. EVERYONE but Harry Reid and the Dem Senators saw that as suicide.
    =======================
    Political heart throbs.

    See my quote of Boehner above.

    The pornographic use of the filibuster by the GOP who saw it as the only way to get off has caused recess appointments.

    The courts were so desperate for judges that Bybee and other fascists were put on the bench.

    Both the filibuster of judges and this decision were the correct direction.

  27. SR: “…expand executive power to act without congress when such cooperation is mandated by the constitution.”

  28. Bob, Esq:

    “You’re on the wrong side of principle; and now history.”

    *******************

    We don’t put presidents on Mt. Rushmore for doing nothing when the country is in desperate need. That’s why Lincoln, Jefferson & Roosevelt (all accused of acting unconstitutional in office) didn’t have to move over for that good ol’ gentleman, Cal “do-nothing” Coolidge. (Washington must have led a charmed life.)

    BTW I think history will be kinder to me than you think. It hasn’t spoken yet.

  29. The Constitution exists to check the ambition of the justices of the Supreme Court.

    Let’s consider the “usurpation” of legislative power by the SCOTUS.

    The Constitution has power. The Supreme Court has no power.

    The Constitution rules. The Supreme Court is subordinate to the Constitution.

    The Constitution prevails. The Supreme Court exists to assure that.

    The Supreme court is the “concierge” of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has no power to “interpret” or otherwise modify the words of the Constitution – that is usurpation, malpractice and insurrection.

    The Supreme Court exists to read words, not to agree or disagree with the effect of the Constitution or legislation, or to manipulate the Constitution or legislation to obtain a particular effect. The SCOTUS does not have the power to “legislate from the bench.” The consideration of and deliberation over the words of the Constitution were done by the 55 men who unanimously agreed on the words of the Constitution.

    55 men unanimously agreed on the words of the Constitution.

    9 justices “split” and variously, illegally controvert the words of the Constitution.

    Deviation from the literal words of the Constitution and split decisions are malpractice worthy of penalties.

    Who will honor, support and uphold the dominion of the Constitution over the simple functionality of 9 fallible justices of the Supreme Court? Who will supervise, direct, impose corrective action on and penalize the justices of the Supreme Court for subjective and ideological decisions, derived from personal bias, that controvert the literal words of the Constitution?

    The Constitution decides, not the justices of the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court was intended to apply the literal words of the Constitution to “check” the “ambitions” of both the executive and legislative branches.

    The Supreme Court is the historical, singular American failure.

  30. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-john-boehner-wants-to-sue-president-obama/2014/06/25/fc1e93e0-fc9d-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html“Ater howling about excessive lawsuits, they are embracing long-shot litigation. After lamenting activist judges, they are now insisting that judges be more activist and shed their long-standing reluctance to adjudicate disputes between the elected branches.

    House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio meets with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 24, 2014. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

    Even some conservative scholars argue that lawmakers probably don’t have a legal standing for such a suit. If Republicans persuade the courts to grant them standing, the case could take years to work its way through the system, at which point Obama will be gone. Adding to the charade, the taxpayer-funded legal fight would be waged under the authority of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is known by the acronym “BLAG” and is bipartisan only in name because it is controlled by the House majority.”

  31. mespo, The President has lost 12 UNANIMOUS decisions since January 2012! It’s like my old man would say. “If you go through this world and think everyone doesn’t understand you and they’re all a-holes; well my son, that means you’re the a-hole.” This quote applies to Obama, not you. You’re merely partisan. This house of cards is tumbling. The Separation of Powers was written for times when the govt.is divided.

  32. Just what has Obama done, Constitutional or Unconstitutional, that will put him on Mt. Rushmore? Mount Narcissus for sure, but not Rushmore.

  33. Jim22: Why do libs always point to previous bad behavior to justify current bad behavior instead of just admitting that what is going on is bad’

    It’s called ‘precedent’. Very big deal in the legal world. Republicants do it just as often.

  34. nick:

    I agree arguing with the referee is ultimately fruitless from a results point of view, but the argument itself is sometimes important. Until 1937, FDR lost every court challenge to his New Deal programs. Once he started talking court-packing, things changed. How’d history judge those programs?

  35. nick:

    I think you underestimate Obama’s role in preventing and mitigating the potentially single worst economic disaster in history caused by those Repub cronies on Wall Street over-leveraging and fighting regulation. Obama’s not a great president in my view but he did shepherd the country through some dark times not of his making. That counts for something.

  36. Mark,

    The day the constitution is amended to reflect your theory of executive power; i.e. the Charles Bronson in “Death Wish” — “I have the power because I know better” — then you’ll be on the right side of principle and history.

    Until then you remain on the wrong side of principle and for now the wrong side of history.

  37. Bob, Esq.:

    ““I have the power because I know better” — then you’ll be on the right side of principle and history.”

    *************************

    We’ve amended it that way every time we had a real national crisis: 1861, 1933, 1941 & 2001 to cite the years I can think of when that’s happened. It’s a principle as old as Cincinnatus. Desperate times require desperate measures. The Constitution admits that principle in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 Thankfully, we’ve had men who believed in peacefully relinquishing power after the danger passed.

  38. mespo, New Deal programs helped a bit. But, we didn’t come out of the Depression until the WW2 economy.

    GDP declined almost 3% in the first quarter of 2014. And, much of that decline is because of Obama’s Mount Narcissus achievement, Obamacare. The bailouts by Obama did fend off disaster, but @ what cost? Obama’s “boldest” move was bailing out GM and Chrysler. Let’s ask the people who are limited to compensation from the criminal negligence by GM what they think of the bailout.

  39. Bob, One of 2 things have occurred w/ the IRS. Either the WH clandestinely directed them to usurp the free speech of political groups opposed to them, or the IRS did it on their own. Think about if for a moment. The first is Nixonian. It’s happened previously, and we dealt w/ it. But the latter is much more chilling. Big government needs big government politicians elected. The IRS is the “sales force” for big government. Helping sell politicians that will perpetuate the bureaucracy, not needing any direction from politicians, they instinctively know what to do. Just a wink and nod is all that’s required.

  40. So I suppose the best thing for Obama is to just do nothing-DO what the white guys want. Let’s be sanctimonious-We are justified in allowing prejudice and hatefulness in the name of the Constitution. Obama should just be President with no power-what the white guys want, Perhaps if Boehner had done his job, -A LEADER of the House- we would not have to deal with this issue. How many times did George Bush use his executive power!!!! I suppose if we have a completely incompetent Speaker of the House, it would be better for the president to just play Golf for the next 4 years-and the white guys will all bitch. This is ridiculous…

  41. Nick,

    I have no idea what actually occurred. What I do know is that the actions of the IRS and the excuses they’ve given for their “inability” to cooperate with a congressional investigation screams for the need for an independent prosecutor.

  42. “We’ve amended it that way every time…”

    Mark,

    I said agreement with principle, not precedent.

    So far as I see, the constitution has not been amended to provide for the type of executive power you crave.

  43. Beth just played the race card. She slid it out there in the first sentence and completed it w/ her last sentence. So, all you folks opposed to Obama, YOU’RE RAAAACIST! Despicable, desperate and depraved allegation.

  44. Nick, You are a racist for just pointing out the race card. I personally would love a govt. that did NOTHING! Sounds like a great place to live.

  45. Annie,

    I don’t know why it doesn’t bother you that the president is acting like a king. You write: “Some want government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub. Perhaps Congessional gridlock is just the first step in the demise of our government, for those who would see it destroyed to be replaced with a theocracy, or oligarchy. How patriotic.”

    Separation of powers is at the heart of our system of govt. Losing that is just a part of how Constitutional government has seen its demise in the US. The fastest way to a theocracy and oligarchy (which we already have) is through concentration of power into a lawless executive.

    Not only is it patriotic to stand against a lawless executive, it is our duty as citizens to oppose such. Congressional gridlock is the least of our worries when we cede power to the executive who acts as though he were a king. The dangers of the latter don’t remotely compare to the harm of the former.

    I know many here were not on this blog during the reign of BushCheney, but if you look at the archives you will see that JT has been extremely consistent in excoriating and warning about the dangers of executive lawlessness.

  46. Jill: “I know many here were not on this blog during the reign of BushCheney, but if you look at the archives you will see that JT has been extremely consistent in excoriating and warning about the dangers of executive lawlessness.”

    I remember and I’ll second that.

  47. mespo – there is a new book claiming that Coolige was suffering from senility before his stroke and he was less than useless at Versailles.

  48. Jill, I’m speaking of some very powerful people who want to replace our current form of government with a different form of government so far removed from the Consitution it would make your head spin.

  49. The DOW was at 9600 or so when Bush left office and is at about 17,000 now. For all of you RepubliCons out there that berat Barack, if your boy gets elected in 2016 then invest in the DOW in January when Romney or whomever it is gets signed in and see how you do in 4 years. My bet is that it will be ugly. If the Dems lose in 2016 then I will pull out now. Like my father should have when Hoover came into office.

  50. Jill, seriously, you think a Republican president wouldn’t have gone even further in the overreach and spying that the Obama Adminstration has?

  51. It seems pretty clear given the unanimous decision the Supreme Court is likely not going to have much sympathy for unilateralism by the Executive Branch.

  52. Annie,

    I don’t understand your point. We do not have a Republican president, we have president Obama. As a party loyalist you must honestly deal with the present wrongdoing by leaders of your party. Every citizen is called to hold our “leadership” to account. Why do you not hold President Obama to account for his lawless actions?

  53. Jill, You just wrote a thoughtful, reasoned comment. I appreciate your intellect and objectivity, because I too am reasonable and capable of independent thought.

  54. Wall Streeter, hedge fund, lobbyist have all FLOURISHED under Obama. Regular folks are still unemployed. College grads are flipping burgers. I thought Dems were supposed to be for regular folk. That’s why I gave Obama my vote in 2008, I took a chance. Boy, did I learn!!

  55. Jill,
    We cannot just focus on the current Preaident when the previous President got away with the SAME thing. How can your complaint about this President not include the misconduct of the previous President? That makes one look like they are very partisan and have a serious case of amnesia.

  56. Jill, Beth Meier thinks we’re all racist. When the game is almost over and you’re about to lose, you use every play and use dirty tactics. Well, that’s what classless teams do. Teams w/ character take the loss graciously and learn from it. I took my lumps after voting for Obama in 2008. Of course, I’m not a cultist.

  57. I notice Turley mentions the abortion ruling in passing, and also notice that no one seems interested enough to comment on that.

    This blog becomes more trivial by the day. I guess it’s JT’s blog and he can do what he wants with it, but…

    Does anyone find it ironic that now moron nut-jobs can scream in the face of women making the most difficult decision of their lives from just inches away, because they are on “the public sidewalk,” but protestors at the Supreme Court itself are not afforded that right; or at presidential speeches must stay half a mile away in wire enclosed ‘free speech zones?’

    I guess not.

    I say screw this republic. It is completely absurd. Let’s scrap it and start over.

  58. Annie,

    As I said on a different thread, your comment about holding the previous president accountable for his actions is interesting. The people who should be holding Bush to account in a court of law are Obama and Holder. Yet, they do not do this.

    It’s not really true that they did the same crimes as Obama. Obama has committed more and different crimes than Bush and Cheney (in addition to committing the same crimes). Still, I agree with you that Cheney and Bush should be held to account for their crimes (and I have said this many times). You need to be saying that you want Bush/Cheney to be held to account and you want Obama/Biden to be held to account as well. Crimes do not disappear because they are committed by “our” party.

    I don’t assume anything. You simply will not call for holding Obama accountable in a court of law or through a perfectly lawful process called impeachment. Why not? You say it about Bush, why not Obama?

  59. Annie, When Democrats obstructed some asinine judicial appointment by Bush, did you object to this obstructionist behavior on their part? Did you call them “unpatriotic”. If not, why not?

  60. I read this blog every day but I think that it is time to stop. I’m sure you are all really sad that our country will be going to hell in a hand basket with the rich buying the government that does what they want. But you aren’t willing to do anything about it. But, you’ll have your intellectual integrity, for what it is worth. Thank god I’ve only got another ten or twenty years to live with this mess. I fear for my children’s welfare.

  61. mespo, you convict previous presidents but then give obama a free pass for all his sins, the biggest one of which is taking us into debt that we will never recover from. Handing out corporate welfare checks, medicare checks, social security and food stamps is inflationary. If you are in favor of the government spending more money, at least you should favor directing that money towards projects that would increase the GDP, actually employ people rather than putting them in front of TV sets 8 hours a day, balance supply and demand, to the extent that inflation is under control so that the average american can afford to live. Production made america, and only production can save her. As it is, your government spending drives prices up, dilutes the gdp and wages, placing everyone on a perpetual treadmill. I realize this is a foreign concept for someone earning a paycheck rather than actually running a business, but it shows how we desperately need to get rid of the career politicians, replace them with individuals who have real experience with production — not destruction.

  62. Jill, one of the very first huge disappintments of Obama voters was that his administration decided not to go after Bush Cheney. Perhaps you missed the other times I’ve said this very same thing here on the Turley blog. I’m not sure want you want me to say regarding Obama, you don’t seem willing to say the same about Bush, why is that?

  63. Annie – one of the truisms of politics is to not go after the previous administration. If you do, it will come back to haunt you when the next administration comes after you.

  64. Jill you are sounding every bit as partisan as you seem to be saying I am. I think we are at an impasse here.

  65. Annie,

    How am I sounding partisan? Would you please give a quote from what I said that sounds partisan to you? I would address that if you would show me how I was being partisan.

    Thanks!

  66. Annie,

    I just said Cheney and Bush should be held to account in a court of law. I also believe Obama should be held to account in a court of law. Being disappointed that Obama didn’t hold the prior presidents to account is great, but I still haven’t seen you say Obama should be held to account in a court of law. Why not?

  67. Annie, here is my comment from 5:38. Please explain how it is partisan so I can address your concerns:

    Annie,

    As I said on a different thread, your comment about holding the previous president accountable for his actions is interesting. The people who should be holding Bush to account in a court of law are Obama and Holder. Yet, they do not do this.

    It’s not really true that they did the same crimes as Obama. Obama has committed more and different crimes than Bush and Cheney (in addition to committing the same crimes). Still, I agree with you that Cheney and Bush should be held to account for their crimes (and I have said this many times). You need to be saying that you want Bush/Cheney to be held to account and you want Obama/Biden to be held to account as well. Crimes do not disappear because they are committed by “our” party.

    I don’t assume anything. You simply will not call for holding Obama accountable in a court of law or through a perfectly lawful process called impeachment. Why not? You say it about Bush, why not Obama?

  68. SWM –

    Annie, Many tea party operatives around. Some fly under cover.

    So, are you planning to narc them out to the IRS, SWM?

  69. Annie, here is my comment from 5:16. Would you please explain how it is partisan so I may directly address your concerns? Thanks!

    Annie,

    I don’t understand your point. We do not have a Republican president, we have president Obama. As a party loyalist you must honestly deal with the present wrongdoing by leaders of your party. Every citizen is called to hold our “leadership” to account. Why do you not hold President Obama to account for his lawless actions?

  70. If you believe you are operating legally, it is hard to prove to a jury that what you did is illegal. However, Obama has less wiggle room then Bush or Cheney.

  71. Annie: “Jill you are sounding every bit as partisan as you seem to be saying I am.”

    Wrong.

    In the five or six years I’ve been here, Jill has been here. And in all that time I have never seen her take a partisan stand.

    Jill is a formalist to a fault.

  72. Paul C, Actually, my opinion of the IRS is that they are incompetent. Hope you all get together with Palin and form a third party.

  73. Annie, Here is my comment from 5:16 Would you please explain how it is partisan so I may address your concerns:

    Annie,

    I don’t understand your point. We do not have a Republican president, we have president Obama. As a party loyalist you must honestly deal with the present wrongdoing by leaders of your party. Every citizen is called to hold our “leadership” to account. Why do you not hold President Obama to account for his lawless actions?

  74. By emphasizinghe fact that the current Presdident is Democratic, while at the same time making no mention of the very same activity by Bush is a dead giveaway Jill. “by leaders of your party” another dead giveaway. Jill you are as big a partisan as you accuse me of being. As I said, impasse. End of story.

  75. Annie, Don’t bother to go around that block again. I did it many times in 2010. When she spoke favorably of Eric Erickson of Red State, the light came on.

  76. What I find interesting SWM, is why so many Tea People and libertarians fly under the radar and attempt to pass themselves off as non partisan. I find it very dishonest.

  77. Annie,

    I’m sorry, but you don’t get to call Jill partisan simply because she’s not currently bashing Bush for you.

    And use of the phrase “members of your party” is completely appropriate when addressing someone who always favors the democrats in her posts.

  78. SMM, If you say I spoke favorably of Eric Erickson, you do need to show that quote.

    Now, after trying to smear me with a lie, I will address Annie’s concerns.

    Annie, I have said over and over that Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their crimes. Obama and Biden are, factually, leaders in your party. I’m a Green. If leaders in my party break the law, I should hold them to account. Every citizen, Republican, Democratic, Tea Party, Green, Socialist–, every citizen must hold their own party to account. That is the role of a citizen, to hold one’s own and all “leaders” to account for their actions.

    Bob, I don’t think it’s possible to be too alarmist about what is happening to our society. But thanks for pointing out that I have been consistent, something a cursory look through the archives will indeed show!

  79. Well Bob, I do get to call her a partisan, especially after she consistently emphasizes my partisanship, which I admit to. YOU and she get to disagree, that’s the First Amendment for ya.

  80. Someone needs a little perspective here. If a president is a pedophile, should he get a free pass just because his predecessor was a pedophile with a free pass? Someone here obviously thinks so.

  81. SWM – rather reform from the inside, not form a new party. That is what really scares the begeesus out of the politicians.

  82. Annie, The memo in 2010 was to talk democrats into staying home because the democratic candidates were not pure and thereby enable a tea party victory. You know it worked much better than actually advocating for a tea party candidate in some venues.

  83. Annie, In what way do I not sound like a Green?

    I am for universal, national healtcare. I am for alternative energy. I am for a living wage for every person. I am for environmental clean up. I am pro choice. I am for ending warfare. I am for ending the surveillance state. I am for the return of the rule of law. I am for universal, high quality food, education and housing. I am against the prison state. These (and other progressive stances) are all positions I have taken publicly many times on this blog. Now, how is it that I don’t sound like a Green?

  84. If President A is a pedophile but commits no acts of pedophia during office, but President B does, should both be prosecuted for the acts of President B? Or should President B be let off the hook be because President A did not commit the same crimes?

  85. Presidential lawlessness is a terrible thing for our society. I just cannot understand failing to oppose it. That the SC actually, for a change, stood up and put some kind of limit on this lawlessness is a good. It is a reason to hope that things might get better.

  86. Annie – you are being hypersensitive about this issue. Jill is right. She is not being partisan but you certainly are, regardless of who you voted for.

  87. Jill, you fight against any mention of Bush wrongdoing, every single time it’s brought up. That makes me suspect you. You seem to assume that because I brought up Bush’s wrongdoing I give Obama a pass. That is an assumption on your part, you are too quick to jump to that conclusion and you have done so several times over the past 6 months or so I’ve been commenting on this blog.

  88. Jill: “Bob, I don’t think it’s possible to be too alarmist about what is happening to our society.”

    Jill,

    Remaining acutely aware of all the law breaking going on, as you do, tends to make one feel like Bugs Bunny in “Falling Hare” (“Eeeh, aaah, oooh, etc.”)

    See Bugs reaction at the 7:41 mark for details:

  89. Annie – Bush is not the topic of discussion. In any criminal case your defense cannot be, but the other guy did it, too, so give me a pass.

    BTW, who or what are the Tea People?

  90. Annie, In this list of comments alone I have consistently held that Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their crimes. How is that fighting any mention of Bush wrongdoing? You have to explain your claim, not just make one. I don’t have any issue with saying they both committed war crimes.

    I have not seen you once in this thread say that you believe Obama should be held to account for his crimes. If you did say that in other, prior posts, then why not say it clearly now?

  91. Annie,

    Your entire message regarding Bush is “if Bush did it and got away with it then Obama should get away with it too.”

    That’s not an argument; that’s a temper tantrum.

  92. Bush will ALWAYS be brought up in any conversation about Obama wrongdoing Paul. How naive are you? Or how naive do you think Democrats are?

  93. Jill,

    Your reputation for objectivity remains untarnished.

    And I’m going back to the Patty C. days.

  94. Bob, your 6:33 is a total mischaracterization of my stance. How wrong can you possibly be? No wonder this country is so messed up.

  95. Paul, JT has written about the laws broken by Bush and Cheney as has Glenn Greenwald. A Republican, Bruce Fein, has also written on the issue. Torture is a war crime as is starting a war of aggression.

  96. Annie, it is interesting to compare the actions of Bush/Cheney with Obama. An honest assessment is what is demanded from citizens.

  97. Annie,

    There’s no such thing as comparative criminal prosecution.

    Bringing up the crimes of Bush when discussing the crimes of Obama is known as “IRRELEVANT.”

  98. Annie, I just said that Bush and Cheney committed war crimes. How is that a discussion of Bush’s righteousness? You are simply making claims without any substantiation.

    Obama has also committed war crimes. The SC has, in a small way, begun to say no to the executive. This is a good thing for our nation.

  99. Jill, I said Paul would be happy to explain Bush’s righteousness in regard to torture. I know you don’t agree it was righteous.

  100. We need to read each other’s comments carefully when hey are being posted so fast and furiously. I’m glad we could end up on a semi agreement on wrongdoing by both Presidents, Jill. I have a date with my 6 week old grandson in a few minutes, see you later perhaps.

  101. Since Bush/Cheney have Congressional and UN coverage for their war of aggression, that takes Iraqi Freedom off the table. Torture is what is the definition of the word is thingie. They have coverage, just as Obama does with his drone attacks, with a legal memo on the waterboarding not being torture. So… what else have you got?

  102. Annie, I did read your posts carefully. You have been attacking me with false claims. That is not acceptable behavior. I don’t wish you ill. At the same time, if you are going to make a false claim, I will correct that claim.

  103. Jill

    I know people in the tea party movement and they aren’t all racist and they are quite sincere.” Will look for the Erickson quote later, but it may take some time.

  104. I can see that SMM has made a post but cannot see her post. Darren, if you see this message will you report a problem to WP? This has been true of the entire thread. It will show a comment has been made, but not the actual comment. The comment finally shows up about 5 or less mins. later.

    Thanks!

  105. Jill, acceptable behavior? Excuse me? I’m not allowed to make the observation that you sound as partisan as you said very clearly I was? What’s good for the goose is good goth goose, but it must be based on more assumption on BOTH of our parts. No on like being mischaracterized and we all get to respond to such mischaracterizations. Now I’m off, have fun.

  106. Jill A fair number of them are neo-confederates like the guy that lost to Cochran in Mississippi. You can ally yourself with these groups to oust Obama but it is not all that moral to me.

  107. No, making false claims is not acceptable behavior. I supported everything I said, you did not. The proof of that lies in the tread above, for all to read and make their own decision about it.

  108. Jill, you don’t like it when someone challenges you, do you? Sorry but it’s all part of debating. You made false claims regarding my stance, do you not see what you’ve done here? Now I must go.

  109. SMM, You just said “a fair number of them”. I said “not all”. We are then on complete agreement regarding members of the tea party not all being racists.

  110. There is no rule which says that we must stick up for our principals. Grade school principal was fine. Junior high principal ok. High School principal was a Pal to himself. Total jerk. Y’all can stand up for your principals if you want to but I see not relevance to doing so on these topics here on the blog. We had some jerk, first name Merlin for dog sake, who needed to be stood up and shot with all the BB guns he confiscated.

  111. Annie, on the contrary, at each point I specifically asked you to show me where I had engaged in one behavior or another that you said I had done.

    I then said I would address your concerns and I did so. How does being willing to engage with you by asking you a question and providing answers show I don’t like being challenged?

    You need to show how this means I don’t like being challenged.

  112. Annie, Also, when you get back, please let me where I have made a false claim concerning you. I will retract that claim if you will please show it to me.

  113. Annie: “Wrong Bob, PRECEDENT is of vast importance, as a lawyer you should know that.”

    Wrong Annie.

    Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued.

    Bush getting away with crimes is not PRECEDENT because why?

    Because there is no DECISION for you to reference.

    Therefore, your continual whining about Bush whenever people discuss the crimes of Obama remains IRRELEVANT.

  114. Partisan politics… American style… Can be summed up easily:
    “It never is (fill in blank) when the President is from my Party.”

  115. The law was so formulated that without a chairman and a quorum the agency could not legally function.Congress ,through the filibuster,made it impossible for these to be selected.When congress went on a “holiday”. arrangements were made for a pro forma session to be held at intervals of 3 days.At these pro forma sessions no legislation was to be considered by agreement.At the pro forma sessions the format was to call the meeting to order, hold the meeting open for a few minutes at most ,and to adjourn.Thus, the law could not be enforced; the people who would be harmed in the absence of enforcement of the law were unjustly left to suffer.To me this scenario ADDS UP TO A FARCE,SOMETHING I THOUGHT THE SENATE IN THE 1904 DELIBERATIONS ABOUT INTERIM ” PERIODS’ HAD RULED OUT AS A LEGITIMATE KIND OF ”SESSION.” BUT, IN THE MOST BASIC SENSE ,i DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED THAT SUCH OBSTRUCTION OF THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF LAWS WAS TO BE TREATED AS A LEGITIMATE WAY OF OPERATING. THE GOAL OF PREVENTING THE PRESIDENT FROM FULFILLING HIS OBLIGATION TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW IS SELF-EVIDENT. THAT IS SABOTAGE ,NOT A TYPE OF POLITICAL MANEUVER.

  116. There is a cancer growing on the Presidency.

    The President is deliberately and wilfully perpetrating a “serial violation” of the separation of powers.

    Yet another article of impeachment.

  117. How can the Supreme Court find that Obama violated the Constitution in his use of recess appointments and not find that Obama violated the Constitution when he claimed eligibility for the office while having a father that was a citizen of a foreign country.

    The Founders understood that a natural born citizen had two parents and that they were citizens. That was normal, common, typical, traditional and customary. It was UNDERSTOOD. The Founders had no idea that their words would be deliberately spun and mis- “interpreted” one day.

    The highest office had the highest requirements.

    Undeniably, the American Founders rejected the British legal system as they rejected British rule.

    The most cursory investigation into the origin of the phrase, natural born citizen, would inexorably lead to the Law of Nations and to the writings of the Founders on the subject of the imperative of precluding foreign allegiances in the presidency.

    The Law of Nations’ early editions were in French. French was the language of Britain until the 11tth century. The British upper class spoke French. English was spoken by the lower classes. British law was conducted in French until the mid 18th century. George Washington, among others, spoke French. The author of the Law of Nations, Vattel, was a French-speaking Swiss.

    The legal text of the era, the Law of Nations, which Franklin said the Founders “pounced on” as the legal reference, required two parents for natural born citizenship and clarified that inheritance, rank, property, citizenship, social status, etc. flowed from the father, not the mother.

    The Founders wrote that “foreign allegiances” had to be precluded with extreme prejudice from the office of president. It is impossible to avoid “foreign allegiances” in the presidency by having the son of a foreign citizen hold the office.

    Every presidential candidate, save one who lied, followed the natural born citizen requirement and had two parents that were citizens.

    How the hell did the Supreme Court, Your Highness, Your Eminence, My Lord, Your Excellency, Your Magnificence, Your Honour, Your Worship, Your Majesty, Your Illustriousness, et. al.; how the hell did the Supreme Court decide, by deliberation, omission and negligence, that the son of a foreign citizen was eligible to be a candidate for the office of president?

    Through a grand act of biased, subjective and ideological omission. The SCOTUS served its political allies and ideological benefactors through inaction, in conjunction with the contemporary Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

    The SCOTUS through lower courts rejected cases on eligibility.

    The SCOTUS demonstrated its zeal and “ambition” and violated the Constitution by exceeding the boundaries of its authority and attempting to usurp the power of the legislative branch and by “legislating from the bench.”

    The SCOTUS is the singular American failure.

  118. Jill, NOW are you getting my point about cultists? They are sad and angry. Under normal circumstances engaging cultists is not advisable. But, w/ their cult leader imploding, they are out of control.

  119. There is very little that I can ethically and/or morally put forth here on this Turley blog thread; for I am constrained by my grasp of the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers, of which I am a member.

    What I find constrains me notably more than anything else, as I can fathom it, is an aspect of the properties of symbolic communication, symbolic communication that includes, but is not limited to, using supposedly English language words in sentences and paragraphs and their ilk, as in this writing.

    I expect to, but seek not to, be seriously misunderstood, said misunderstandings being intrinsic to the form and function of English language symbolic communication.

    The issue I find raised by Obama’s “recess appointments” and their being deemed, after the fact, unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court is, for me, the result of, and the cause of a foundational enigma in the philosophy of science, that enigma being the philosophy of the science of the philosophy of authority.

    What is the nature of authority, including, but not limited to, the nature of social authority as a function of personal authority and the nature of personal authority as a function of social authority?

    Is actual authority subjective or (meaning, inclusive-or) objective, and, if actual authority is objective, how will persons who believe in personal authority find ways to object to the notion of objective authority, for, surely, objective authority contains personal authority as a proper subset?

    Suppose (are not all court judgements hypothetical hypotheses subject to objective refutation when such objective refutation has become practicable?) that supposing is a useful approach to solving intractable problems…

    Given that suppositions are supposedly useful in situations in which supposing is as good as it ever actually gets, I entreat whosoever reads this (if anyone bothers to read it) to follow the suppositions which supposedly follow this word sequence, the better to learn whether something can be learned thereby…

    Let the supposing begin:

    Suppose that President Obama found himself, in the role of President of the United States of America, in a moral and ethical constitutional predicament for which no resolution was anywhere evident.

    Suppose that President Obama experienced that predicament as the constitution requiring that which the constitution prohibited his doing, such that, whatever he did, he could, after the fact, be faulted for violating his oath of office.

    Suppose that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, recognized, if only unconsciously, that he was entrained in a predicament for which the constitution, as previously understood, portended no possible remedy, except violating the constitution in one way or another.

    Suppose that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar whose declarative brain functions were conscious and whose procedural brain functions were unconscious.

    Suppose that President Obama’s conscious brain functions were unable to direct him toward any kind of resolution of the constitutional predicament, and, therefore, his unconscious procedural brain functions led him to make what he sincerely, no matter to what extent mistakenly, believed was his only viable option, to act as best he could and, if necessary, stir up a constitutional puzzlement, or, perhaps, even a constitutional crisis.

    Suppose: What options did President Obama actually have if, as I am prepared to wildly conjecture, he found himself in a double-bind trap, the only remedy he could find for which was to violate the constitution in one way or another, because the constitution required, as his procedural brain was able to understand, what it prohibited.

    Suppose, using what may be mangled (American) football parlance, Obama found his only option was to punt.

    Suppose that, in punting, President Obama had no access to any clear sense of direction, and, having no clear sense of direction because of being in a double-bind, punted blindly, with no accurate way to guess which way the goal posts were, or whether his punt, if successful, would end up winning the game for his supposed opponents.

    Suppose: What was President Obama to do, if, as is here supposed, he found himself in a predicament for which nothing in his prior life experience had prepared him to do other than the equivalent of a randomly chaotic punt, except what he may have done for want of a practicable alternative, to wit, a chaotically random form of American-football-punt-analogy?

    Suppose those who call the plays in the life game of football after the game is over are in the same sort of predicament as has here been supposed that President Obama was?

    Suppose that hindsight, folk tradition notwithstanding, which holds that hindsight is of 20-20 vision, is actually of absolute blindness to the biological (hence, neurological, hence neural-network based) process of learning, because humans have yet to learn to understand how learning actually works.

    Suppose, as I wrote many years ago, it is actually true, in a scientific sense, that:
    Second-guessing any newborn child makes the gift of life defiled.

    Suppose, in the sense of the Nyquist sampling criterion, that the whole universe of universes exists for one unit of Planck time, ceases to exist for one unit of Planck time, and is created anew, slightly changed, in the next unit of Planck time?

    Suppose: Were that supposition true (how could ti be measured?)j, surely the whole universe of universes is new born every two units of Planck time, and we are constantly being newborn, that being the process whereby change can happen in a changeless universe of universes.

    Suppose what has here been written is of a unified field theory, or theory of everything, which actually includes everything?

    Suppose “life” and “learning” are two words for one phenomenon, the phenomenon of the process of existence?

  120. Binyamin – the court has held that Congress can set its own rules as long as they conform to the Constitution. What Presidents had been doing was waiting out a Congressional session, waiting for them to go on vacation and then make appointments. This process stopped the President from doing that.

  121. Jill – “SMM, You just said “a fair number of them”. I said “not all”. We are then on complete agreement regarding members of the tea party not all being racists.”

    True enough as this is also true, not all liberals are racists.

  122. Ok, Obama did it, does this speak about other appointments made by other presidents? Can’t have it both ways unless you pack the court. Oh yes, the bushes did just that.

  123. Keebler – they can make recess appt, there is no issue with that. Congress was not in recess, they were technically in session to stop recess appts. This is a special case.

  124. John Boltons appointment was block. Now realistically what is that much difference here? I am against them because they are used for political maneuvering.

    But for favors owed to Kerry, he would never have been selected. First they had to derail the rice nomination.

  125. Bolton was appt. during an actual recess. Obama’s claim was that Congress was in recess, but Congress was still meeting and claimed it was not in recess for the NLRB appts.

  126. History rewrites itself. Bolton was being kicked around the senate and his confirmation was blocked. Bush back doored it.

  127. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.

    What is your perception of the phrases, “economy of words” and “the fog factor?”

    Nothing personal but I fell asleep about 10 words into your post.

    You’re like the SCOTUS. If you were paid $10M to express your ideas in, oh let’s say, 5 or 10 sentences, maybe a quarter of a page, could you do it?

    It’s like the SCOTUS. Everything was written for them in 1789 and 1791 but they write and write and write and write and write; even though the only thing they have to say is, “Yep it comports well and precisely with the Constitution” or “Nope, it don’t.”

  128. Richard,

    Thank you for your telling me of your appreciation for being given a way to get a nap. Naps can be helpful.

    I write for, and only for, such people, if any, who may find some use for what i write.

  129. How about one (compound) sentence, whatever happens, as it happens, is inescapably both perfectly necessary and perfectly sufficient, even if so merely because nothing else ever happens.

  130. Now see, that was concise and to the point.

    An “economy of words” and circumvention of the “fog factor.”

  131. Thanks, what I wrote that, I guess, you found acceptable was concise, to the point, economical of words, circumvented the “fog factor” and was perfectly meaningless for want of any trace of meaningful context.

    Also, it was specifically written to be flawlessly pointless.

  132. Jimmycrackcorn and all others who think they pass out of a need for the planet when they kick the bucket…. BALONEY! In 40 years you will be back on it or floating in space around an asteroid belt between Venus and Mars. You bought the One Lifetime MuslimJudeoChristian thing to control you. Take more responsibility than that!

  133. Constitutional Law “professor ” who “studied” constitution at Harvard , who “taught” constitution , and who had said will “obey” constitution , has really done all of that , while living in his bubble , and his supporters will defend him while living in their own bubbles .

  134. Annie, Government was never intended to be large, it was always intended to be small. That’s the true stature of a Republic-Democracy. That’s real freedom. When a government takes from one and gives to another that’s socialism. We were never intended to be a complete socialistic country.

  135. To expand on mespo727272’s comment at 2:22 pm June 26, 2014:

    Jonathan Turley, perhaps now that you’ve taken down President Obama a notch with your criticism of his extra-constitutional behavior in making four recess appointments when Congress was nominally not in recess — why don’t you comment on Congress’ cute trick?

    Do you really think it’s constitutionally correct and within their power for Congress to abrogate the President’s executive power by the sham non-recess when essentially no one’s in Congress and everyone’s on vacation or between Sessions? Do you really think calling Congress into “Session” for mere minutes every 3 days during the Recess is the intent of the law?

    “12/17/11 09:49 PM EST The Senate adjourned for the year shortly after 3:30 p.m. Saturday, but GOP leaders insisted on holding ten cursory pro-forma sessions over the next month to stop President Obama from making recess appointments.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200121-senate-schedules-pro-forma-sessions-to-block-obamas-recess-appointments

  136. karen503 – evidently the Supreme Court thinks Congress is in session, even if the President doesn’t.

Comments are closed.