Mr. President, Follow the Law

Mr. President, Follow the Law

The Washington Times takes the president and the NLRB to task for ignoring a recent appeals court decision invalidating the president's appointments to the board: When the Constitution puts a limitation on executive authority, the president can’t just ignore it for the sake of convenience. That message was delivered forcefully on Friday in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel declared unlawful President Obama’s installation of three appointees to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in session. The president is compounding his disregard for the Constitution by thumbing his nose at this well-reasoned decision. The nation’s founding document grants the president authority to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” The appellate panel’s ruling points out the use of “the Recess” as opposed to “a recess” or “an adjournment” was not accidental. The term refers to the long break between congressional sessions in which it makes sense for the president to make an interim appointment because the Senate is not available to provide its advice and consent. In his ruling, Chief Judge David B. Sentelle refused to accept novel interpretations meant to expand the appointment authority, saying, “We will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Framers’ choice of words.” Desperate to stack the National Labor Relations Board with Big Labor cronies, the White House refused to allow an old piece of parchment get in the way. On Jan. 4, 2012, Mr. Obama made the appointments even though the Senate was conducting “pro forma” business and the House of Representatives purposely chose to remain in session to thwart the potential recess appointments. Administration lawyers argued before the court that the president, not Congress, had the ultimate power to decide when the Congress was in session. Under this interpretation, Senate participation in the nomination process would be converted from a check and balance on the executive to an empty formality.

NLRB  Overreach not Overlooked by House Education and Workforce Committee

NLRB Overreach not Overlooked by House Education and Workforce Committee

In their aggressive overreach to help the union bosses, the National Labor Relations Board has a devastating strong of courtroom losses that are putting them back into place.  The House Education and Workforce Committee looks at their grasp for more power: [Last] week, the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suffered yet another defeat in federal court. On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg – appointed to the federal bench last year by President Obama – rejected the board’s recent ambush election rule. During the final days of 2011, the Obama labor board jammed through the regulatory process sweeping changes to long-standing rules governing union elections, changes that undermine employer free speech and worker free choice. As Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline noted: The Obama board’s rush to enact this rule before it loses its quorum confirms what my Republican colleagues and I have suspected all along – this board is not fighting for the best interests of our workforce, but instead is determined to advance an activist, pro-union agenda at any cost. Yet in their haste to adopt a flawed rule, board members Mark Pearce and Craig Becker neglected to follow the law. Citing Hollywood icon Woody Allen, Judge Boasberg writes: Eighty percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters – even when the quorum is constituted electronically. In this case, because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid. The decision represents a victory on behalf of workers and employers, and is hopefully not the last. As the Wall Street Journal noted, “Given the NLRB spectacle of the last three years, this probably won't be the only time the commission loses in court—or the only time that judges need to invoke Mr. Allen to describe its absurdity.”

Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Mark Mix: President Barack Obama is jeopardizing the very constitutional balance of the United States in order to pay off his union benefactors. But Right to Work officers and supporters are fighting back. Credit: Fox News Legislative Challenge to 'Ambush' Election Scheme Now Pending (source: National Right To Work Committee March 2012 Newsletter) On Capitol Hill, in federal court, and at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Right to Work proponents are now helping spearhead efforts to stop the Obama Administration and Big Labor from dragooning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional workers into forced-dues-paying ranks every year. President Barack Obama instigated his latest showdown with Right to Work proponents on January 4, when he installed three new members on the five-member NLRB through "recess appointments," despite the fact that the U.S. Senate was manifestly not in recess. "The phony 'recess' appointments to the NLRB that President Obama made at the beginning of this year illegally circumvented at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution," charged National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "First, Article II, Section 2 grants to the chief executive the power to appoint 'officers of the United States,' but only 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' "The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when 'vacancies happen during recesses of the Senate' may the President make temporary 'recess' appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber." President Claims Constitutional Definition of 'Recess' Can't Be Used to Limit His Power "Second, Mr. Obama and his Justice Department have attempted to justify his so-called 'recess' appointments by effectively asserting that it is the President's prerogative to declare that the Senate is in recess at any moment when the chamber is not actually conducting business," Mr. Mix continued. "But the constitutional definition of 'recess' in Article I, Section 5 contradicts this theory. That's why the White House is now contending this provision can't be used to restrict the President's appointment power."

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."