Skip to main content

By SAM HANANEL | Associated Press 

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.

When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.

 

More:

http://news.yahoo.com/court-sa...653695--finance.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The explanation is that recess appointments are something that all presidents have done because the Constitution provides for them (some recent numbers are Reagan: 243, Clinton: 139, G.W. Bush: 171, including John Bolton as UN Ambassador), but recently the Senate has started holding constant pro forma sessions when out of session to block President Obama from making any recess appointments at all (to be fair, Senate Democrats also used this tactic a few times in Bush's second term). The White House considered this tactic to be an illegitimate attempt to eliminate all recess appointments based on a technicality rather than the spirit of the law, but a Reagan-appointed judge sided with Republicans. So for now, recess appointments are effectively dead barring a different ruling from the Supreme Court, because you can bet that Democrats are going to do the same thing the next time there's a Republican president. And a bunch of important positions will remain unfilled due to the Senate's inability to even bring nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote due to arcane filibuster rules (which Senators from both parties share the blame for).

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam:

The explanation is that recess appointments are something that all presidents have done because the Constitution provides for them (some recent numbers are Reagan: 243, Clinton: 139, G.W. Bush: 171, including John Bolton as UN Ambassador), but recently the Senate has started holding constant pro forma sessions when out of session to block President Obama from making any recess appointments at all (to be fair, Senate Democrats also used this tactic a few times in Bush's second term). The White House considered this tactic to be an illegitimate attempt to eliminate all recess appointments based on a technicality rather than the spirit of the law, but a Reagan-appointed judge sided with Republicans. So for now, recess appointments are effectively dead barring a different ruling from the Supreme Court, because you can bet that Democrats are going to do the same thing the next time there's a Republican president. And a bunch of important positions will remain unfilled due to the Senate's inability to even bring nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote due to arcane filibuster rules (which Senators from both parties share the blame for).

 -----------------------------

Wow, this has been up 17 hours now.   Where is Jobe to defend Reagan and Bush doing the same thing and seemingly not calling them violators of the Constitution?

Wow uncle, it took you over a day to respond? I’m just saying you lefties are quick to defend our current POTUS no matter what disgraceful things he does.

 

From the article:

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

 

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board.

 

The right was only doing what the left has done in the past.

 

 

I don’t know about Reagan but Bush didn’t go ahead with the appointments like this administration did. Richard Durbin a democratic Senator didn’t argue that point on TV this morning.

 

Again from the article:

 

“But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions“.

 

Both sides have done these so-called pro forma sessions but at least Bush followed the rules and didn’t go ahead with the appointments. My guess would be that Reagan followed the rules as well. That’s the difference between the left and the right.

 

 

Originally Posted by MonkeysUncleByMarriage:

Pretty much all modern Presidents have done it.  You can split hairs any way you want Jobe.   Come back to reality.  Speaking of upbringings, I wonder about yours.  You constantly lie just to further your political agenda.  Sure your parents are proud.

No, what Obama did was new. Basically, the Senate Republicans started always being in pro forma sessions to block all recess appointments, so the White House decided to challenge this by arguing that pro forma sessions didn't actually count as the Senate being in session (in other words, a technicality rather than the spirit of the law) and making appointments anyway, but they lost that argument in court. So the practice of recess appointments is now effectively dead, since Senators from the party not in control of the White House will now always keep the Senate in pro forma sessions when the Senate is out of session, and the courts have now made it clear that there's nothing the executive branch can do about it (only the Supreme Court could overrule this decision, or the Senate could change its rules, but neither seems likely). 

Isn't Obama the one who was touted as being so highly qualified for President in 2008 because he was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago and he was such a Constitutional scholar that we were so fortunate to have a person of such expertise running for President?  How could he have missed this little violation?

Ok here is my take on politics someone stop me if I am wrong here. Now if someone does there job wrong or does something really stupid that costs a company money what happens THEY GET FIRED!!!! What does america do over and over these last fifteen years with both parties and president and senate and house we Re-elect the same Dumb asses that put us here in the first place. The ones in office were put there to do there F####ING job and what do they do they waste my money I give them for there pay check. They got my country so screwed up now I am not sure what it suppose to be now. Heck Hillary did most of that mans job hey since she gone let him sweat a little. Harry Reid is a complete pile of ##### and Jhon Bahner is just a yes man that got lucky. I hope with new bill that house finally made him do something and get off his yes man stance. Now the ball falls on the senate and the pile of #### to do something or I don't pay them for a month. Unless ohh use less himself says no cant have that. Hey at least during regan we saw the soviet collapse what has happened under our current leadership problem in Israel Hillary go do my job as a neutral party. When our buildings our attacked and a major security breakdowns in other countries Hillary take the rap. Nope cant stand a man that plays with our money we pay him than rather actually doing his job. Heck monkeys uncle if you like family guy even brian said he liked Hillary. Haven't say anything about him being prod of this one.

Originally Posted by TheMeInTeam:

No, what Obama did was new. Basically, the Senate Republicans started always being in pro forma sessions to block all recess appointments, so the White House decided to challenge this by arguing that pro forma sessions didn't actually count as the Senate being in session (in other words, a technicality rather than the spirit of the law) and making appointments anyway, but they lost that argument in court. So the practice of recess appointments is now effectively dead, since Senators from the party not in control of the White House will now always keep the Senate in pro forma sessions when the Senate is out of session, and the courts have now made it clear that there's nothing the executive branch can do about it (only the Supreme Court could overrule this decision, or the Senate could change its rules, but neither seems likely). 

----------

True, it is different in the respect that the Senate started using the Pro Forma Sessions to block recess appointments.   It is simply a tactic to block Obama from doing what all presidents have done before.    And you are right, it is a technicality.    Pro forma or not, the senate was still in recess.   The GOP will try to change everything in order to take away Obama's ability to do what other Presidents have done, including bogus pro forma sessions.   Reminds me of the present wave of redistricting of voting blocks, by state GOP, going on in states that Obama won.   

The big difference is this regime ignored the rules and made appointments anyway.

 

BTW, these vacancies were open for months before this administration tried to fill them. The regime knew the people nominated by them were so incompetent they wouldn’t get passed the hearings so they attempted to use this tactic.

 

Again, same thing all have done before.   Previous Presidents weren't held to the standard this President has with silly nuances like extreme fillibustering and bogus pro forma sessions.   Reminds me of when blacks were finally allowed to play intergrated basketball and there were talks of outlawing the dunk.  

"Officially" integrated basketball-1944-69 years ago. Blacks playing basketball, 120 years. Outlawing the "dunk", 1968-1977. Not because of blacks, but because of one player who just happened to be black.

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

 

Sports Q&A:

Why did the NCAA outlaw dunking in the late 1960s?

Top

By 1968 UCLA center Lew Alcindor had become so unstoppable that the NCAA outlawed dunking in an attempt to make him a little less dominant. But according to many observers, the rule change made Alcindor even more of a force. The towering center continued to post 30- and 40-point games with dizzying regularity, and the rule change gave him the opportunity to block many more shots since opponents had to shoot the ball from short range rather than dunk it. It was not until the 1977 season that the NCAA finally realized the error of its ways and restored the dunk to college ball.



Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/w...-1960s#ixzz2JHlFU1ik

Other Presidents haven't been subjected to the same rules or conduct from Congress as other Presidents have.   Clinton and Republicans worked great together, Democrats rolled over for Bush.   Boehner and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle McConnell stated up front they would refuse to work with the President

 

The dunk did not become fashionable, so to say until the late 60's and was primarily used by african americans.  And basketball may have been "officially" integrated in 1944, but you know (or I hope you do) as well as I, that was far from when it was really integrated.   Here is an excerpt from a website on sports integration.  The NBA was ahead of the college game, but the college game still held the pathway to the NBA and a lot of blacks were denied chances to play, especially in certain geographic regions and when they did play, they had to conform to a certain style of basketball.

 

"The first step in integrating collegiate basketball was integrating the school itself. White southern colleges did not even begin to admit black students until the early 1960s, despite the fact that Brown vs. Board of Education had deemed segregated public schools unconstitutional in 1954. Once African Americans were allowed on campus, they were still excluded from athletic teams until the late 1960s and early 1970s."

 

http://www.sportsinblackandwhi...etball-in-the-south/

It reminds me of integration in that we get a black president and he is subject to things no other president has been before him.   Bogus pro forma sessions, constant fillibusters, refusals to work with him even without seeing legislation, and now redistricting in several states, and whatever else you want to bring up.  In other words, change the game in hopes of suppressing the others success.

Sorry MU, but that's just not true. Bush was, and still is, attacked on EVERYTHING. I think it's time to give that "cause he's a black man" thing a rest for more than the most obvious, it's not true. The reason I don't vote for a democrat is because of their policies, not their color. Especially a democrat like obama, an unqualified, never did anything, man, no matter his color. What about all the white democrats I don't vote for? I wouldn't have voted for hillary clinton. Is it because she's black, or because I don't agree with her politically? And none will ever answer the question, how is he a "black" man when he is as much white as he is black? And to try and compare it to basketball is really a stretch.

Originally Posted by MonkeysUncleByMarriage:

It reminds me of integration in that we get a black president and he is subject to things no other president has been before him.   Bogus pro forma sessions, constant fillibusters, refusals to work with him even without seeing legislation, and now redistricting in several states, and whatever else you want to bring up.  In other words, change the game in hopes of suppressing the others success.

===============

Oh, like the democrats did? This is another reason I have always said, in a REAL, true, fair, honest election there would be no obama in office.

  The NBA was ahead of the college game, but the college game still held the pathway to the NBA and a lot of blacks were denied chances to play, especially in certain geographic regions and when they did play, they had to conform to a certain style of basketball.

 

"The first step in integrating collegiate basketball was integrating the school itself. White southern colleges did not even begin to admit black students until the early 1960s, despite the fact that Brown vs. Board of Education had deemed segregated public schools unconstitutional in 1954. Once African Americans were allowed on campus, they were still excluded from athletic teams until the late 1960s and early 1970s."

 

==================

When my mother was in high school the girls played basketball in PE. That was it. Playing another girl's team was out of the question. Same as football, same as baseball or other sports. How many pro or college women football, or baseball players do we have today? It's time to admit too, racism was a nationwide trait. You have one of the most racist people alive in the white house, obama,  a man that is half white, but refuses to acknowledge it. 

 

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

INTEGRATION AND THE BIRTH OF THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

In 1950, Chuck Cooper became the first African-American player drafted by the fledgling National Basketball Association (NBA). By the 1960s, African-American participation at both the college and professional level had drastically increased, so much so that the Boston Celtics had an all–African-American starting line-up in 1964. The percentage of African Americans playing in the collegiate and professional ranks continued to increase in the 1970s.

The increase in African-American dominance of professional basketball during the latter decades of the twentieth century was such that a survey of NBA all-franchise players in 1994, covering the league from its beginnings, showed that out of 124 players, 86 were African Americans, 35 were European Americans, 1 was African, 1 was European, and 1 was an Iranian American. The NBA named its fifty greatest players from its first fifty years in 1996. Of these, thirty-one were African Americans and eighteen were European American. In 2001, the Basketball Hall of Fame included 34 African Americans and 77 European Americans. James Naismith and the Nigerian-born Hakeem Olajuwon were the only non–American-born inductees.



Read more: Basketball - INTEGRATION AND THE BIRTH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, RACIAL GENETICS OF, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF - African, American, Americans, and European - JRank Articles http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/...l.html#ixzz2JI52pmUu

She was beautiful, she could dance, she could sing, and she could act. Most importantly, she had that indefinable magnetism that attracts an audience and holds their attention. In short, she had everything it took to be a major star in the 1950s. Everything, that is, except white skin. Today, actresses of color like Halle Berry win Oscar®s®, are hired to be "the face" of prestigious cosmetic companies, and are widely celebrated for their beauty, talent, and sex-appeal. But Dorothy Dandridge was an African-American in a less enlightened age where she could perform at the most exclusive nightclubs in the country - but she wasn't allowed to sit in the audience. She could sing at the top hotel hot spots in Las Vegas, but she couldn't get a room there or even use the pool. (She did go into one hotel pool in Las Vegas, and they drained and scrubbed it). It was no better in Hollywood. For decades, the best roles African-American actresses could expect were maids or long-suffering, pious mothers; the worst were shady women or stereotypical "Mammies". Dorothy Dandridge managed, for all too brief a time, to rise above that. 

 

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/...rothy-Dandridge.html

 

The bold print is my comment. I've read that account many times, and the incident was included in the movie about her life. Las Vegas, Hollywood, "the country", not quite the South is it.

Agreed.   It was and still is, nationwide.   I said certain regions were more difficult.   To deny the south was tougher on integration is simply false.    Wasn't it Mississippi State who refused to participate in the NCAA's because they allowed integrated teams in? 

 

This President is racist?  LOL.   When has he denied his "white half?"   He seems rather proud of his mother.   I have never seen him deny any whiteness.  He may very well identify more with black culture, but there is no racism in that.  

This President is racist?  LOL.   When has he denied his "white half?"   He seems rather proud of his mother.   I have never seen him deny any whiteness.  He may very well identify more with black culture, but there is no racism in that.

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

I've never heard him acknowledge his white family unless he was "forced" to mention them. He calls himself black, not bi-racial. IMO, he doesn't "identify" (your words) more with the black culture, he identifies ONLY with the black culture. He's not much on family, that's true, but when he does mention them it's only the black side. He's as racist as they come.

Unless I'm mistaken, it was against the law for blacks and whites to marry until 1967.

 

Loving v. Virginia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Jump to: navigation, search
Loving v. Virginia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
 
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 10, 1967
Decided June 12, 1967
Full case nameRichard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia
  
 
 
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S.1 (1967),[1] was a landmarkcivil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored." The Supreme Court's unanimous decision held this prohibition was unconstitutional, overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies as well as songs. In the 2010s, it again became relevant in the context of the debate about same-sex marriage in the United States

Not sure what your point is Best.  Yes, I know that blacks were done wrong throughout the whole country, not just the south.   But the south was slower than the rest of the country in amending that.   MSU not accepting an invitation to play the NCAA because northern and western schools had integrated is a perfect example.    Or watch any Bear Bryant documentary or read any Bear Bryant book and see how tough it was for him to get Alabama's football team integrated and how long he wanted to do it before he actually did because he knew the backlash he would get.   All this while northern and western schools had fully integrated their athletics. 

How much slower was the South? MSU not accepting an invitation at a time when all over the country blacks were being denied rights is somehow more egregious? And what does it matter how slow they were? It is not like that now. I don't see the point in harping on what people did in the past or trying to put the blame for it on people who had nothing to do with it and who have done nothing wrong. The argument that racism is the reason people don't like or vote for obama is as silly as trying to make others responsible for the past.  I guess blacks vote for democrats because all republican candidates are white? OR if they're black republicans they're called "uncle toms", "aunt jemimas"  or "oreos" among other things. Yes, that is some real advanced thinking. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×