The former head of the National Labor Relations Board Peter Schaumber is letting the world know that President Obama was willing to shred the Constitution and make “recess appointments” while Congress was in session in order to please the union…
From Media Trackers: In Wisconsin, Milwaukee Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf issued a search warrant for Florida SEIU organizer Clarence Haynes declaring there is “probable cause that Mr. H [Clarence Haynes] voted without the proper qualifications as an elector when he cast a…
Roger Pilon, a constitutional scholar from the CATO Institute, makes a compelling case that President Obama's outrageous appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are unconstitutional: All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever. Yesterday, Professors John Yoo and Richard Epstein, writing separately, made it crystal clear that the president, under Article II, section 2, may make temporary recess appointments, but only when the Senate is in recess. Add in Article I, section 5, and it’s plain that the Senate is presently not in recess, just as it wasn’t under Senate Democrats when George W. Bush wanted to make recess appointments. The difference here is that Bush respected those constitutional provisions while Obama — never a constitutional law professor but only a part-time instructor – ignores them as politically inconvenient. Attempts by Obama’s apologists to say the Senate is not in session are pure sophistry and, in the case of Harry Reid, rank hypocrisy, as this morning’s Wall Street Journal brings out. But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’” A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.
Roger Pilon, a constitutional scholar from the CATO Institute, makes a compelling case that President Obama's outrageous appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are unconstitutional: All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever. Yesterday, Professors John Yoo and Richard Epstein, writing separately, made it crystal clear that the president, under Article II, section 2, may make temporary recess appointments, but only when the Senate is in recess. Add in Article I, section 5, and it’s plain that the Senate is presently not in recess, just as it wasn’t under Senate Democrats when George W. Bush wanted to make recess appointments. The difference here is that Bush respected those constitutional provisions while Obama — never a constitutional law professor but only a part-time instructor – ignores them as politically inconvenient. Attempts by Obama’s apologists to say the Senate is not in session are pure sophistry and, in the case of Harry Reid, rank hypocrisy, as this morning’s Wall Street Journal brings out. But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’” A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.
From the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation: Worker Rights Advocate Blasts Obama’s Unprecedented Recess Appointments to the NLRB The President’s legally dubious NLRB recess appointments pave the way for another year of forced-unionism giveaways…
AFL-CIO Boss Richard Trumka could not be happier at President Obama’s “recess” appointment of three big labor lackeys to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The problem is that the Senate was never in recess. The appointments raise grave constitutional…
Typically before a reelection, Presidents try to avoid creating constitutional battles. Not President Obama, he bypassed the Senate and appointed three NLRB board members. Effectively, Obama handed the NLRB over to Big Labor Bosses, his biggest political spenders and political ground force, or “his army” as Teamster Boss Hoffa describes it. Election 2012 has already become ugly. This power grab by a desperate president gives Big Labor control over the NLRB, which was supposedly established to referee labor relations disputes. Obama’s actions will make Big Labor the Harlem Trotters of labor disputes. Also, it will create a legal battle with Republicans in congress. A battle the former constitutional law professor seems to seek. From the Hill: The recess appointments President Obama announced Wednesday are “almost certain” to be challenged in court … The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate." The gambit puts the bureau in "uncertain legal territory," according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). From the Washington Times: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks; Nominations could provoke constitutional fight Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs Big Labor applauds, from In These Times: Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB. Is It Enough for AFL-CIO Endorsement?
Typically before a reelection, Presidents try to avoid creating constitutional battles. Not President Obama, he bypassed the Senate and appointed three NLRB board members. Effectively, Obama handed the NLRB over to Big Labor Bosses, his biggest political spenders and political ground force, or “his army” as Teamster Boss Hoffa describes it. Election 2012 has already become ugly. This power grab by a desperate president gives Big Labor control over the NLRB, which was supposedly established to referee labor relations disputes. Obama’s actions will make Big Labor the Harlem Trotters of labor disputes. Also, it will create a legal battle with Republicans in congress. A battle the former constitutional law professor seems to seek. From the Hill: The recess appointments President Obama announced Wednesday are “almost certain” to be challenged in court … The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate." The gambit puts the bureau in "uncertain legal territory," according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). From the Washington Times: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks; Nominations could provoke constitutional fight Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs Big Labor applauds, from In These Times: Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB. Is It Enough for AFL-CIO Endorsement?
According to Jeff Harris, Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman Right To Work is a "smack at organized labor" and it will "gut unions." Apparently, AFL-CIO bosses know that if Hoosiers aren't forced to pay union dues, then many Hoosiers will spend their own money on something else. This may be why the AFL-CIO embraces the anti-free market Occupy America movement, because these union bosses know that 'services' are overpriced and bear no resemblance to free market pricing. So, will Big Labor convince the Democrats to flee to Illinois again in effort to hide from their legislative responsibilities? We don't know that answer, yet. But, we do know Big Labor is planning for a January collective hissy fit at the Indiana capitol building. From Associated Press writers Charles Wilson and Ken Kusmer: Indiana’s Republican House leader on Tuesday promised swift movement on a push to make his state the first in more than a decade to ban labor contracts that require employees to pay union fees. Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis told The Associated Press he is confident he can push the “right-to-work” bill through his chamber during the 2012 session that begins Wednesday and is spending a lot “personal capital” to do so. Bosma, who has been the measure’s most ardent supporter, said he hadn’t yet taken a formal tally of supportive votes, but added he “also wouldn’t bring it forward if I wasn’t confident of success.” The proposal would bar private employee unions from seeking contracts that mandate all workers pay union fees regardless of whether they are members. Supporters say the law would help attract new business to the state. Indiana’s House Democrats successfully blocked the measure last year with a five-week walkout that denied House Republicans the numbers needed to conduct daily business. Democratic leaders have so far declined to say whether they will walk out again this session. Indiana would become the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law, the first to do so since Oklahoma in 2001. Republicans hold wide margins in the Indiana Assembly: 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate and GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels has come out with strong support for the measure. “There’s nowhere we are we closer than we are in Indianapolis,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which pushes the measure in Statehouse’s across the country. The group has maintained a state executive director to coordinate volunteer support for the measure over the last few years and recently sent three or more new staff to shore up support in tough districts Indiana.