Appeals Court Spurns Obama’s UnConstitutional Recess Appointments

0 Shares
146776481

Just as the Obama Administration’s public reputation is at its lowest ebb over unConstitutional surveillance and discriminatory targeting of political enemies by government agencies with unfettered power comes a decision in which an appeals court ruled the President himself violated the Constitution when he made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) while the Senate was taking a break.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia handed down the 2-1 decision last Thursday, invalidating not only the President’s appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB in March 2010 — when the Senate was in a two-week intrasession recess — but also some of the NLRB’s subsequent actions in which he participated.

The Senate had blocked Becker’s nomination to the same position only a month earlier. In all, Obama filled 15 vacancies by recess appointment during the March 2010 break.

Last week’s ruling is similar to one made against Obama in January of this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which invalidated the President’s appointments of Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin to the NLRB at a time when the Senate was adjourned for Christmas break. The President has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The NLRB had argued Obama’s position that the definition of “recess,” as stated in in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution (the “Recess Appointments Clause”), would allow the President to unilaterally make appointments that normally require Senate ratification, so long as the Senate essentially wasn’t assembled — and, therefore, not available to conduct business.

But the court recognized the absurdity of that argument, noting:

And therein lies the implausibility of the [NLRB’s] unavailable-for-business definition. As explained above, the Board argues that a recess occurs any time members of the Senate do not have a duty to attend, the Senate chamber is empty, and the Senate is unavailable to receive communications from the president.

…The problem with this definition is that the Senate fulfills these criteria whenever its members leave for the weekend, go home for the evening, or even take a break for lunch. In each of these instances, the senators have no duty to attend, the Senate chamber is empty, and the body cannot receive messages from the president.

Defining recess in this way would eviscerate the divided-powers framework the two Appointments Clauses establish. If the Senate refused to confirm a president‘s nominees, then the president could circumvent the Senate‘s constitutional role simply by waiting until senators go home for the evening.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who’s been among the President’s most vocal critics over last week’s multiple scandals involving discrimination and abuse of power by the Executive Branch, told FOX News the two rulings illustrate the egregiousness of what he called an “unprecedented power grab” by the President.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Kinetic1

    Mr. Bullard,

    You neglected to mention, as the Denver Post did that

    “The rulings could also threaten the recess appointments of previous presidents. President George W. Bush made 141 such appointments in eight years.”
    http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_23258906/second-court-invalidates-obama-recess-appointment#ixzz2TohKIGqq

    141 appointments and yet it is only now, during the Obama administration that it is considered an issue. In fact, President Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77, and President Clinton made 140. If President Obama’s appointments are such an illegal power grab, why wasn’t something done back when President Reagan was averaging 4 times as many such appointment per year?

    • Vigilant

      So, we shouldn’t address unconstitutional actions simply because they were done in the past?

      • Michael Shreve

        The are simply NOT a legitimate part of the CURRENT discussion.

      • WTS/JAY

        That seems to be the “twisted-logic” of the left, Vigilant! Can you imagine a judge presiding over a murder-case where the defendant is found guilty and conceding to that kind of an “idiotic-argument”?

    • Frank Kahn

      So, your point is?

      The idea behind the recess appointments is not to force acceptance, it is to facilitate a smooth transfer of control. If congress has already vetted and rejected a proposed appointee, then using the recess appointment process to get that person into the position is just wrong and must not be allowed.

      If the illegal alien, pretending to be president, wants someone to be appointed, he will have to act in a civilized manner and accept the decision of the people who were elected to perform that function.

      When Obama, and the rest of you insane liberals, get the idea that there are rules that must be followed, this country will begin to accept his leadership. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that Obama says is right, correct, factual or legal, just because he says it is. Nobody is acceptable for a position of power in our government unless the correct process is followed by the correct people. Obama is not that person, and is not trustworthy enough to be allowed to appoint people just because they suck up to his moronic idea of truth and reality.

      I am sure that Clinton abused the system the same way that Obama does, so his appointments should be questioned as well. If the others like Reagan or Bush abused it to force an appointee onto congress, like Obama, then those should be reviewed too. Maybe if Obama would stop thinking that everyone should bow down to Union thugs, he could get something accomplished.

      Keep pushing, just see what happens.

      Maybe you could talk to a psychologist, ask them how humans react when you keep pushing them somewhere they dont want to go.

      If you keep pushing hard enough, and long enough, something will happen. It aint gonna be what you want, but something will happen.

      Think of it like this, try to pull a bone away from a dog. When it clamps its jaws tighter, pull harder, when it tries to pull it back from you, pull even harder. When you have managed to make the dog really mad and you finally get the bone from him, run like hell, because he aint gonna be aiming to bite the bone.

      We don’t want unions running the country, we don’t want them telling us how much we are worth or how much we have to pay for things. We dont want to pay them a percentage of our pay so they can have an easy life. WE DONT WANT THEM. So, keep trying to shove them down our throats, but pull your hand back really fast before you lose it.

      So, Obama’s illegal attempt at instilling Union thugs (criminals) into positions of power over the workers of the country is going to bite him in the back side, one way or another he will lose.

      • WTS/JAY

        Good one, Frank!!! I see no rebuttal from Kinetic1, which can only mean that he is in complete agreement but is too proud to thank you for correcting him!

        • Kinetic1

          Sorry to disappoint you, WTS/Jay. You see, I have a life away from this computer, plus I like to take a little time to do research rather than just post whatever I can pull out of my butt. And, as you will note Frank failed to look into the actions of the House Republicans who have abused and circumvented the rules well beyond anything President Obama has been accused of.

          Oh, and least I forget, Thank you Frank for prompting me to dig even deeper into the TEA Party Republicans and their dirty politics.

          • WTS/JAY

            Kinetic1: And, as you will note Frank failed to look into the actions of the House Republicans who have abused and circumvented the rules well beyond anything President Obama has been accused of.

            Nonsense! The actions of the house-Republicans who have abused and circumvented the rules have been duly noted on PLD and to ad-nauseam…as for your claim that they went beyond anything obama has been accused of is still a pathetic-argument by the left-wing loons in a desperate-attempt to deflect attention from the illegal-activities performed by Obama!

          • Kinetic1

            Really? Please direct me to the article that exposes the Republican House plan to abuse their powers and manipulate the Democratically held Senate to obstruct the President.

      • Kinetic1

        “When Obama, and the rest of you insane liberals, get the idea that there are rules that must be followed, this country will begin to accept his leadership.”

        Rules? Are you suggesting that Obama is THE rule breaker in all of this? The Republican House has refused to allow the Senate to recess in an attempt to prevent the President from enacting recess appointments, which are his privilege under the Constitution. And according to Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution, the President can adjourn the Congress if the Houses can’t agree on a Time of Adjournment. Well, I’d say that when the House refuses to allow the Senate recess, that’s about as close as you can get to “can’t agree.” And the appeals court panel, well they’re breaking with over a century of precedence in reaching this decision, which I’m sure will continue up to the SC.

        “Sen. Sherrod Brown:
        I called the Senate historian recently and asked him when was the last time or was there a time when the Senate actually—when a minority in the Senate pledged to block a nominee because that party actually opposed the agency’s very existence. When was the last time that a group of Senators—44, as Senator Shelby points out—signed a letter threatening a filibuster implicitly, saying they will not
        confirm somebody until we get our way, until we change the law, the structure of the agency? Never happened before until right now. It is unprecedented. And that kind of partisanship is why people are so unhappy with their Government. They see a dysfunctional Government that simply cannot do this.”

      • Jeff

        Frank, every time you post some bile-ridden nonsense about Obama being from Mars, you solidify your position on this blog while you establish yourself, to the outside world, as a nut. The idea that you speak for “the people,” is laughable. I doubt if 2 per cent of the population agrees with your extreme views. Meanwhile, keep posting. It’s always good to know what you nutcases are “thinking.”

        • WTS/JAY

          Meanwhile, keep posting. It’s always good to know what you nutcases are “thinking.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

        Who is the “illegal alien” you are talking about? Did Bush follow those rules?

    • hippybiker

      “But they did it too.” Sounds like a little puss off the school yard.

    • hippybiker

      Also, I’m sure if these other Presidents had done this under handed thing the way Obama has done it, the other side of the isle would do the same.

      • Kinetic1

        Steven, Ted, Vigilant, and others responding,

        All of you are so deep in your bias and hatred for President Obama that you seem willing to assume only the Dems did anything wrong, if indeed their was anything wrong about their actions. But here’s the thing,

        “The Congressional Research Service found a total of 329 intrasession recess appointments — appointments that occurred when the Senate adjourned in the middle of a session — since 1981.”
        http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/federal-court-would-have-invalidated-hundreds-of-recess-appointments.php

        329 intrasession appointments. Most are long passed and will suffer no consequences, but the point is that these were all enacted using the same criteria as during this administration! “No”, you say, “Obama as evil ulterior motives and he is forcing appointees that we the people don’t want.” Well why do you think these other Presidents used this method of getting their man in office?

        “If congress has already vetted and rejected a proposed appointee, then using the recess appointment process to get that person into the position is just wrong and must not be allowed.”

        Really? Do you recall John Bolton? He couldn’t get passed the Senate even when the Republicans were in control, so President Bush used a recess appointment to get him in before the new Dem Controlled congress could get in place.

        “”But they did it too.” Sounds like a little puss off the school yard.” “Your comparisons, to previous administration Recess appointments are Apples to Oranges! “”So, we shouldn’t address unconstitutional actions simply because they were done in the past?”

        It’s called precedent. Actions approved for use by those in the past are generally accepted for those in the present. And comparing the use of “intra-recess” appointments is hardly “Apples to Oranges”. Your proof of this assertion is simply your bias! As for whether or not they are unconstitutional, yes we should address the question. The Attorneys General have supported the practice since the ’20s and, so far the Judiciary has not questioned their opinion.

        Yes, Sen. Reid did use a rather questionable tactic to try and reduce the number of days to a level below the threshold, and the Republicans are now playing tit-for-tat. No, I don’t approve of such games, but this takes it to a new level. This isn’t the Senate choosing to use these tactics (and why would a Democratically lead Senate), this is the House Republicans FORCING the practice!

        “In a June 15, 2011 letter to Speaker John Boehner, House majority leader, Eric Cantor, and House majority whip, Kevin McCarthy, 78 representatives requested that “all appropriate measures be taken to prevent any and all recess appointments by preventing the Senate from officially recessing for the remainder of the 112th Congress.” Denial of the Senate’s request for a recess would force the Senate into pro forma sessions and recess appointments would be disallowed.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/26/1182273/-Recess-Appointments-Unconsti-wuh-Please-Proceed-Republicans#

        So, it’s not the Senate acting to prevent the President from appointing someone they don’t approve of, it’s the House manipulating the Senate to insure that they have control over those positions they don’t want filled. Hey, you’re right! It is Apples and Oranges!

        • Frank Kahn

          like I said before, keep pushing and see what happens. We The People, do not want Unions destroying our economy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

            “Unions?” What has “unions” to do with this article or comments? But incidentally, union wages allow a fair wage so that families can buy what they need for their family, thus improving tax collection soas to help the national debt.

          • Frank Kahn

            If you paid attention, the appointment to the NLRB was an advocate of Unions. The argument on his appointment is directly related to Unions in this country.

            As a liberal, you will not be capable of understanding the true meaning of the word FAIR. Nothing that the unions provide, in pay and benefits, is definable as FAIR. They use extortion and violence to get grossly inflated wages for the union members.

            The economy is much more complex than you seem to be able to comprehend. If you and your family (union babies) get 5 times as much pay as your production warrants, the company has to raise the cost of all its consumer goods. This causes inflation. This actually forces some businesses to close. The people, who used to be employed in those business, now have to rely on government assistance. This increases the cost of the government. Your increased taxes does not cover the amount of entitlements needed to support these displaced workers. The government lost the revenue of those displaced workers.

            When you, union babies, start talking in real English language. When the meaning of the words you use are the correct meanings, then we can discuss your lies. YOU DON’T NEED BIG VACATIONS, FANCY CARS, BIG HOMES, LAVISH MEALS.

            I can survive on less than $15,000 a year, because that covers all my needs, how much do your needs cost? If you think you need $250,000 for your needs, then you are doing something wrong.

            If you got a $10,000 a year raise in pay, because of the union, your additional tax contribution would be less than $2,000 a year. Food stamps for a family of 5 is over $700 a month, that is $8,400 a year. So if your unions raise caused 1 person to lose a job, it is costing the government $6,400 a year in losses.

            Unions are bad for business, and bad for the economy. They are a prime example of personal greed at the cost of community well being.

          • Kinetic1

            First, if YOU were paying attention you would know that, while the Republicans do not care for the man, their objection to voting on his nomination is based in their insistence that the office for which he has been nominated be restructured.

            “First, Republicans Senators refused to allow an up-or-down vote on NLRB nominee Craig Becker, while House Republicans held countless hearings attacking the Board, introduced dozens of bills targeting its authority, and joined in lawsuits filed by anti-union organizations to block the Board’s proposed new rules.
            http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/293409-senate-must-end-uncertainty-at-nlrb#ixzz2TuXdVb5C

            And second, corrupt unions, like corrupt governments, bankers, industrialists etc. are bad for the economy, but unions in and of themselves helped to create the middle class that drives our economy.

            Individuals, as a rule do not have the leverage or the nerve to stand up to their bosses when they are being treated unfairly, are underpaid or find themselves working in unsafe conditions. One need only look at the Fertilizer plant explosion in Texas to see what one can expect from some business owners.

            We are recreating the age of the robber barons (late 19th/early 20th century). Corporations today are turning back the clock to a time of worker suppression. As Union membership has declined, so income inequality has risen to levels not seen in 90 years. An almost unregulated financial industry has plunged the nation into the longest economic downturn since the Depression. The Supreme Court has opened the flood gates to corporations that want to secretly buy elections. Since the Reagan era talk radio and cable news have been subverted into the propaganda arm of the Conservative movement. The battle line were drawn by the Reagan administration and we, the middle class are the victims.

      • Kinetic1

        IF they had?
        “Under past practice, the White House would refrain from making recess appointments unless the Senate was on break for more than 10 days, but Bush sidestepped that tradition with the naming of Fox as ambassador to Belgium, as well as two other controversial nominees.”
        http://www.rollcall.com/issues

    • SJCO Republicans

      I agree that NO government should “power grab”. The defining difference IMHO is that there is an evil tack to the course set by Obamaczar. I didn’t agree with Clinton, didn’t agree with Bush. BUT they didn’t have such an undercurrent of destructive “fundamental transformation”. They had ideas, and made mistakes, but somehow they didn’t really strike me as “America-haters”. They also weren’t able to cloak such activities behind an overwhelming PC & racist agenda permeating our culture of today. There may have been a day, in poitics of yore, when such actions could get a pass.The truth of today requires a very scrutinous eye, because of the insidious nature of this administration.

      • Kinetic1

        SJCO,
        “they didn’t have such an undercurrent of destructive “fundamental transformation”.”

        If you could live through 8 years of G.W. Bush appointing people opposed to the very departments they are heading, lying about threats to our nation, covering up the cost of the two wars he dragged us into and pushing Congress into approving an “emergency” Bank bailout without full consideration, and then tell me he “didn’t have such an undercurrent of destructive “fundamental transformation” …. you’ve got to be kidding me.

      • WTS/JAY

        The policies of the Obama-administration are “Identical” to the policies of the Bush…so why, then, are progressives so smitten with Obama, while at the same time they hate Bush; yet, they are clueless to realize that they wholeheartedly support, through Obama, the policies of the Bush-administration? Other than selling our children into debt slavery at a slightly faster rate and going even farther to bankrupt our nation and collapse our economy than Bush did, increasing taxes on all Americans, destroying more of America’s nuclear deterrent and supporting the killing of yet another generation of our unborn, it appears the only differences between Bush and Obama may be more style over substance!

        • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

          He needs to increase taxes on the VERY rich–they should pay their fair share. And and starting TWO wars (paid for on a credit card), beginning a senior prescription drug benefit (unpaid for), etc. And YOU say “unborn children”, but you don’t see too many Republicans adopting those millions of children, if they were born. Abortion Is legal, and I don’t want the Republican Party telling me whether or not I can have a baby. IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! I probably wont need an abortion (I am age 79), I want the women of this country to have the say over her reproductive (such as “Governor Ultrasound” (Governor of Virginia) would like an ultrasound (which are painful) to be required to be shown the ultrasound by the prospective mother, as if some ultrasound would make difference in her decision. I WISH MEN WOULD HAVE TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A “PROCEDURE” SUCH AS AN ULTRASOUND.

          • independent thinker

            Define “their fair share”. The very rich already are taxed at a rate of approximately 1/3 of their income.

      • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

        Or perhaps because HE IS A BLACK PRESIDENT, AND I DON’T LIKE THAT? Come on, the Civil War is over, and the South did not win!

        • independent thinker

          But he is NOT a black president. obama is considered half white and half black AKA mulatto.

    • Ted Crawford

      Your comparisons, to previous administration Recess appointments are Apples to Oranges! Thanks to one of your own Political Ideology! One Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid! He is the one who, during what should have been the Thanksgiving Recess in 2007, decided to keep the Senate in ” Pro-Forma” session. President Bush ’43’, not my favorite President, honored the Constitution and made NO recess appointments! That created Precedent!
      Unhappy with this policy? Address your discontent to Senator Harry Reid (D), Nevada; Senate Majority Leader! While you are at it you might ask he about all those Appropiations and jobs bills gathering dust on his desk!

    • robotech

      You are a LIAR!
      Bush NEVER made an appointment not blessed by a DEMOCRAT Senate Majority leader.
      That tripe ain’t working, lil’ fella.
      That kindergarten playground mentality brain ead liberals have of ‘lil’ Johnny did it 1st/too” has never worked.
      On adults, that is.
      Thanks for the laugh, dolt.

      • Kinetic1

        The Washington Post, June 2005

        “The Senate yesterday refused for a second time to confirm John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, prompting his supporters to urge President Bush to bypass Congress and give the controversial nominee a recess appointment, which would last 18 months.

        “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000402.html

        The Washington Post, Aug 2005

        “President Bush installed John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations yesterday, employing the presidential power to make temporary appointments to break through a wall of Democratic opposition to Bolton’s confrontational brand of conservatism.”

        Frustrated by the refusal of Senate Democrats to permit a final vote on Bolton’s nomination, Bush said he resorted to the 17-month recess appointment to circumvent “partisan delaying tactics” in Washington and to send a resounding message that the White House is serious about reforming the United Nations.”
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080100436.html

        Roll Call, April 2007

        “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his fellow top Democrats are considering revamping the Senate calendar, which Reid already attempted to structure to avoid Bush recess installments earlier this year. Under past practice, the White House would refrain from making recess appointments unless the Senate was on break for more than 10 days, but Bush sidestepped that tradition with the naming of Fox as ambassador to Belgium, as well as two other controversial nominees.”
        http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_106/-17925-1.html

        Before you call someone a lier, remember that being ignorant of the facts is not the same as knowing the truth. The list of Bush’s recess appointments that were pushed through against the will of the Senate Dems is far longer than just these two.

        • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

          So there!

    • MikeW

      Spoken like a true Liberal fact-dodger. Granted, ALL presidents have made recess appointments during their tenures. But this decision on Obama’s appointments does nothing to extend invalidation to the appointments of previous administrations.
      The difference is that the recess appointments made by Reagan and Clinton and both Bushes were conducted in strict accordance with the true Constitutional definition of recess appointments. They were NOT performed with the “interpretation” used by the Obama administration, which has just been declared by the appeals court to be in violation of Constitutional guidelines defining a legitimate Senate recess.

      • rKinetic1

        Look again Mike. The appeals panel concluded that only openings that occur during the recess are eligible, and that the only recess that counts is the one that occurs between the end of one session and the beginning of another. This is a departure from all previous interpretations of the law, and all the Presidents mentioned made appointments that would violate this ruling.

      • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

        Could you give us a rererence of the decision of the appeals court of guidelines defining a legitmte Senate recess?

        • MikeW

          To hit it roundabout, as noted in the above article, this is an excerpt of the Court’s decision regarding what is NOT a legitimate recess:

          “And therein lies the implausibility of the [NLRB’s] unavailable-for-business definition. As explained above, the Board argues that a recess occurs any time members of the Senate do not have a duty to attend, the Senate chamber is empty, and the Senate is unavailable to receive communications from the president.
          …The problem with this definition is that the Senate fulfills these criteria whenever its members leave for the weekend, go home for the evening, or even take a break for lunch. In each of these instances, the senators have no duty to attend, the Senate chamber is empty, and the body cannot receive messages from the president.
          Defining recess in this way would eviscerate the divided-powers framework the two Appointments Clauses establish. If the Senate refused to confirm a president‘s nominees, then the president could circumvent the Senate‘s constitutional role simply by waiting until senators go home for the evening.”
          A legitimate recess occurs when the Senate officially adjourns business for a holiday break or other defined period, and NOT when they simply go home for the night or the weekend.

    • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

      I strongly recommend that no one read or respond to these types of posts, as they lack any factual or intellectual content.

      • Kinetic1

        Greg,
        When have you EVER posted anything that might suggest the moral and intellectual authority to make such a statement? As a rule I ignore your “clever” little taunts, but this once I thought I would give you the opportunity to show us all what you are made of.

    • Michael Shreve

      WHEN will you people start dealing with what IS going own instead of CHILDISHLY ranting about what the the kid down the street did or didn’t do.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      AMEN!

    • rocketride

      [comment has been edited] the issue isn’t recess appointments in general, only those attempts at recess appointment made when the Senate isn’t actually in recess.

      • Kinetic1

        rocktride,
        The issue isn’t “attempts at recess appointment made when the Senate isn’t actually in recess.”, it’s defining what the parameters of a recess appointment are. For decades the defining number has been 10 to 15 days (though President G.W. Bush ignored that tradition), but now this court panel has decided the true “Constitutional” intent was only during that period between the end of one session and the beginning of the next. Under the ruling of this panel, “the Congressional Research Service found a total of 329 intrasession recess appointments” that would be considered invalid. That’s not my interpretation of the facts, they’re just the facts!

        In the future I would suggest you check your facts and and your ignorance before hurling insults, especially one so offensive.

  • peter

    All boils down to the definition of the law and how it is interpreted by those who really look at it from a moral and straightforward point of view and those who need to redefine it to suit their own objectives. Unfortunately when the president comes from the side of continually inviting criticism with the attitude of ‘ that is how it is, so what are you going to do about it since I am the President, like holder is the Attorney General, and we are to remain unquestioned, demanding your loyalty or else!’ then we are on the losing side for sure and need to bow to the king or else! Maybe one day we will all know the truth about these scoundrels and be able to see them for what they really are. Some folks are in for a terrible surprise when they finally get it. They need not feel too disappointed at that time since they made their own chains and have only themselves to blame for their poor and ill-informed decisions which were at the heart of their own misery and advanced by their chosen ones to persecute, plunder and destroy them at will, laughing all the way to glory in the process! It is so easy to take advantage of folks, all it takes is the recognition of their stupidity. Can someone tell me when this imposter actually did anything which is ” CONSTITUTIONAL?” He governs like he plays golf – not too well!

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      “ObamaCare.”

      • Rick

        One word – FOOL

      • WTS/JAY

        Actually, it’s Romney-Care. Obama stole the idea from Romney.

  • Motov

    It is up to the People to say “Hey you! follow the law, like we all have to, or face the same consequences like the rest of us!
    Just because they are politicians does not give them license to be above the law! (Doesn’t matter which party)

    • rocketride

      Or, as Kipling put it:

      “Whatsoever, for any cause,
      Seeketh to take or give,
      Power above or beyond the Laws,
      Suffer it not to live!
      Holy State or Holy King—
      Or Holy People’s Will—
      Have no truck with the senseless thing.
      Order the guns and kill!”
      .

      That was in the poem “Macdonough’s Song”, in case you’re wondering.

  • By George

    The Obama administration is often viewed in the light of “Chicago Politics”. Well, just what are Chicago Politics? We hear about it; we know it when we see it, but we can’t quite put our finger on it. Political Chicago was formed in the crucible of organized crime, a la the Mafia, with such figures like Al Capone calling the shots.

    With all the Mafia style criminal fall out now swamping us, the ethos of Obama’s administration is becoming clear. Look at Obama as the “Capo de tutti capi”, the Boss of all boss’s. He lives like a prince, takes publicly visible vacations, plays golf frequently, attends dinners where he shakes down the guests, dispense‘s funds to the needy, like green energy companies and unions, and pretends to be outraged because the Republican’s are trying to thwart him, yet his fingerprints are to be found on nothing. That’s for his underlings. Under the Capo de tutti capi is the Commission. For Obama that’s his cabinet and no successful ‘family’ is without its “Consiglieri”. For this administration, that would be Valerie Jarrett and her deputy, until his elevation to the CIA, was the muslim convert, John Brennan. The CIA, under David Patreaus was, for awhile, outside the family. It is not now, at least in its leadership.

    The organizational structure of Mafia has always been a top down, loosely run syndicate with a top boss, a Capo de tutti capi, just like our Federal Government. His crime families are arrayed around him in descending order of importance and size, each family with its own “Capo”. Hillary Clinton, now John Kerry, for the State, Eric Holder for Justice (that’s an oxymoron), Kathleen Sebilius for HHC, Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security, Leon Panetta, now Hagel at Defense, Tim Geitner, now Jack Lew, at Treasury and so on down the line. Every agency of the Federal Government works, like Mafia crime families, independently and at their own pace and focused toward their own goals, but all directed to the enrichment of the administration, the retention of absolute power and the destruction of conservatism and the US Constitution.

    We, as Americans, are now faced with scandal after scandal like the Associate Press wire tapping incident, the bugging of the House Cloak Room, unanswered questions about some of the characters in the Boston Marathon bombing, the blooming IRS scandal, the Benghazi tragedy and, let’s not forget Fast and Furious, the US Governments gun running scheme to supply Mexican drug cartels with fire power to discredit the 2nd amendment. Not to be ignored is the cash give-aways of tax payer money to slimy, green energy companies that make the Enron incident pale in comparison.

    What we are now seeing is this loosely tied knot of “crime families”, who have taken their lead from Obama, slowly coming untied. In the real Mafia world there would be a lot of bodies lying in the street bleeding into the gutters, for all to see and understand. Unlike some movies, the government doesn’t quite go that far; they just sic the enforcement arm of the IRS onto folks breaking them into compliance by being forced into penury to defend themselves or prison, whichever comes first. And, within the “Family” not all is rosy. Hillary wants to be the top Capo. So does John Kerry. Start looking for more disasters to surface, maybe even the odd body or two bleeding into the gutters. Nothing is beyond this bunch.

    What about our side? At the moment, a useless conglomeration of divergent voices, without adult leadership, not understanding at all how the Liberal machine works and pretending that they are important actors in the play. Family soldiers like Chuckie Schumer, a master at the art of obfuscation, has played John McCain and Lindsay Graham, and others, like the fools they are. Mario Rubio just got his education from Schumer with the “comprehensive immigration bill”.

    We have an opportunity here folks. The Conservatives and Constitutionalists out here must step up the pressure while the IRS is in retreat. It’s the best opportunity to strike a death blow to the whole Obama apparatus. Remember, freedom is the goal, the Constitution is the way. Go get ‘em!

  • vietnamvet1971

    O’Puke loses one and we WIN one, a Great day in America.

    • CatGman

      I’ll consider it a win when something is done about it. Until then it is just one more line on a long list of things he gets away with.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      “Mr. O’Puke. what did you “win?”

      • vietnamvet1971

        sorry to ruffle your Liberal feathers there shirley that’s my opinion and I approve and I stand by it just like you say your opinion, you Liberals think you know it all and we are suppose to kneel down to your way or the highway. Keep obeying & following your Boy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/henry.stumpf.1 Henry Stumpf

    Obama is a national DISGRACE!!!!! A complete Fraud and a closet Muslim!!
    This is our president ???? GOD help us.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      God help YOU! President is NOT a fraud and is NOT a “closet Muslim?” Just what IS a closet Muslim. EVEN IF HE WERE, doesn’t the Constitution you conservatives continually yak about give him the FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

      • CommonSense4America

        He is just not man enough to admit that he is a Muslim.

  • robotech

    My question is, when this finally gets called Unconstitutional by SCOTUS, ALL decisions made by the bogus board will be walked back.
    WHO will be responsible for the FINANCIAL burden of the bad decisions.
    It had better NOT be the taxpayer.
    Unions, and OBAMA himself.
    Let Obama set up a donation fund for the reimbu5sement for bad decisions, or make him responsible as he KNEW it was unconstitutional when he did it, he just didn’t think he would get caught.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      Was there a fund set up by Bush for the death of 4000 soldiers and over 50,000 maimed?

    • Quester55

      The truth is, Robo, If you watch All of those moves by Obama, Behind the cameras, & out of the public eye, You’ll be rewarded with the knowledge of what this Communist President’s True Agenda really is!

      1. Member of the, American Communist Party ( Sponsored by his White Grand Parents!

      2. Known by Many Different Names & Titles.

      3. A NON-Citizen [ Birth Records where Forged] As per F,B.I. Reports.

      4. Amasses a good size fortune through Questionable sources.

      5 Fakes Being a Christian, To Win the Christian Vote, But Remains a devout Muslim in Private Life!

      6. Is an EXPERT at Misdirection & Building Smoke-Screens!

      7. Builds up & Gives Unauthorized Political Powers to American Security Agencies, Such as,” F.E.M.A. & Homeland Security,” all in the guise of Being Good for Our Citizen’s Safety “??
      8. Makes a habit of,” Stealing Funds(Taxes) from the S.S.I. & Welfare Programs, ” To Pay off Bribes, & Worthless Overseas Investments that HE Started!!
      8. Swears to ” Up Hold & Protect the Constitution of the United States”, & Then Seeks to Alter, Chang & or Remove All of it’s Powers!
      9. He Continues To Protect His Muslims, Both Here & Overseas, While Allowing their TERRORIST Actions to Go Unpunished in THIS Country!
      !0, Obama, May well be Our LAST President of the United States!
      He & His Fellow Communistic Security Parties, are Pushing Very Hard & will most likely get, An, ” BIO-Electric Tag ” Issued to ALL Americans , under the Guise of being the ultimate proof of Your Citizenship!!
      NOT a Fantasy any LONGER, A Reality that you Fools wanted & Will now Get Unless you REMOVE All Members of this Dictator’s Rule!!
      ” Even so, Come Quickly, Lord Jesus!

  • Steve E

    Obama is a long legged mack daddy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      YOU have added NOTHING to this topic.

  • Michael Shreve

    THIS was one of Obama’s abusive actions that I believe was impeachable. Essentially, it is a usurpation of Senate authority. WHY do we still NEED an NLRB, it is merely a UNION organ. Rectum, I think.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shirley.hall.71868 Shirley Hall

      Why do we stll need an NLRB? It is NOT a union organ. This legislation was passed, I belive in 1935 so tht companies would not abuse their employees (regarding time required to work, unsafe working conditons, under-age employees, etc.) It is a forum for employees to report unsafe working conditions, hours required to work, etc). Read up on it–Google NLRB.

  • Quester55

    As long as, ” John Doe “, American is willing to be led around by that Political Brass Ring in in their collective noses, Obama will be allowed to get away with his CRIMES!

    All of us are at fault & all of us are paying the price for our ” Pass the buck mentality” !

    Talk, Debate, Speeches, & Promises, Mean nothing without Action & that is just what we lack in our Government, Any sigh of Action!

    If We had This Government Body, Back in the War of 1776, We’d still be a Nation under England’s Rule!

    What’s the use, Even these words I put down, are going to attract those self appointed ” grammar” police. Screw them!, I Am Not Politically Correct & Will Never Be!!
    ” Thank God, This world is Not my Home, I’m Just Passing Threw, “

  • ridge runner

    Bet the slope eared muslim marxist and his accessories to the his crimes against of the people of USA, will never get jail time, ever see a Chitcogo drug dealer thug abide by rules.

  • Dues

    I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People,
    a
    new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add
    your name to mine? If this petition gets 100,000 signatures by July
    01, 2013, the White House will review it and respond!

    We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama
    Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets
    enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

    You can view and sign the petition here:

    http://wh.gov/lqARj

    Here’s some more information about this petition:

    Implement impeachment proceedings against anyone known to have
    Violated their Oath to Defend the Constitution of the U.S