Court to Obama Admin: Actually, Those Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously slapped down the controversial “recess” appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board way back in early January of 2012, in what the Associated Press rightly calls an “embarrassing setback.” Indeed, if the Supreme Court upholds the decision, it very well may nullify everything the board has done since the appointments, as it won’t have actually had the quorum of three members required to issue regulations. Ouch.The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. […]
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.Recall, Senate Republicans gaveled in and out of pro forma sessions during the Christmas season, meaning that technically, the Senate was never fully out of session. The court’s decision helps to define what, exactly, a “recess” is, and definitively establish when a president may unilaterally make appointments, sans the requisite “advice and consent of the Senate.”
Importantly, the decision distinguishes “a recess” from “the Recess” (and the English major in me had a giggle at the court’s reference to Samuel Johnson’s dictionary when defining “the”). Essentially, the president has an extremely narrow window in which to make recess appointments: between formal sessions of Congress. From the decision:
All this points to the inescapable conclusion that the Framers intended something specific by the term “the Recess,” and that it was something different than a generic break in proceedings. […]
[The] appointments structure would have been turned upside down if the President could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch.
Obama’s use of the recess appointment in such a manner represents one of many instances when he has attempted to skirt congressional authority to achieve his desired outcome.The Richard Cordray appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will likely face the same fate, although it was challenged in a separate case. The federal government will likely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, so this isn’t the end of the conflict; however, it represents a serious threat to one of Obama’s preferred methods of skirting congressional authority. What’s more, several labor-friendly regulations hang in the balance. In a sense, this is shaping up to be a two-fold loss for Obama: he could very well lose both pieces of his agenda, as well as a method of enacting it.
The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments. Recent Presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2013/01/25/court-to-obama-admin-actually-those-recess-appointments-were-unconstitutional-n1497811
Rand Paul to John Kerry: If it was wrong to bomb Cambodia without Congress’s approval, why is bombing Libya without approval okay?
Excellent, and not just the Libya stuff. Stick with it for Paul’s questions about how smart it is to be arming the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt when Morsi is already wheezing about Jews controlling the media in official diplomatic sessions with the U.S. If you’re wondering why it fell to Paul to ask this question instead of any of the more senior senators who preceded him, it’s because the Senate was perfectly happy to have Obama act unilaterally on Libya. The Iraq war authorization came back to haunt many of them; no one knew at the time how messy Libya might get. O did them a favor, left and right, by freeing them from a tough vote. But Kerry can’t say that so instead he squirms through a few minutes of how the two bombing campaigns are different because they just are. Frankly, Paul let him off easy. You could, if you chose, defend U.S. actions in Cambodia as a cross-border extension of the war already being fought in Vietnam. No such defense for Libya; if anything, the Libya war cut against the AUMF against Al Qaeda that was passed after 9/11 because, as we’ve recently learned, eliminating Qadaffi was actually a boon to jihadist groups like AQ.My one criticism of Paul here is his failure to press Kerry on his proferred excuse, that Obama had no time to ask Congress for action because Qadaffi was about to put thousands of Libyan rebels in Benghazi to the sword. Nonsense. Go look at the timeline leading up to the west’s military intervention. Protests against Qadaffi broke out in mid-February; by February 21, Libyan diplomats were asking the UN for a no-fly zone. A day later Hillary was issuing public statements denouncing Qaddafi and by March 1 the Senate had passed a non-binding resolution — unanimously — encouraging the UN to impose that no-fly zone. It wasn’t until March 15, however, that NFZ was finally approved and not until March 19 that France, backed by the U.S., began an air campaign over the country. Obama had nearly an entire month in which he could have asked for congressional approval but Kerry wants you to believe that his decision was made under some sort of emergency conditions, a la an invasion or nuclear attack, where the president had no choice logistically but to act on his own. Pitiful. He’ll be confirmed with 95+ votes anyway.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/24/rand-paul-to-john-kerry-if-it-was-wrong-to-bomb-cambodia-without-congresss-approval-why-is-bombing-libya-without-approval-okay/
Nothing But Nihilism
On the heels of Hillary Clinton's now-famous question about "what difference . . . does it make" why four Americans in Benghazi were killed comes this appalling piece from Salon, titled "So what if abortion ends life?"And with these two nihilistic questions, we see the hypocrisy of the supposed "compassionate" left -- indeed, one might go so far as to speculate whether a determined lack of compassion for the smallest, most vulnerable among us ultimately helps to create people for whom a political agenda routinely trumps every nobler impulse.
Mary Elizabeth Williams, the writer who proudly declares, "I believe life begins at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice," is perhaps more honest than other pro-abortion liberals, but isn't there something a little bit sad in her evidently unembarrassed declaration that women should have a right to kill the living human creatures inside them at their whim?
Anyone who has decried the moral "slippery slope" of abortion -- and I'm thinking of the Catholic Church here -- has to feel vindicated by Williams' assertion that "All life is not equal." Once that proposition has been accepted, the implications are ugly: Are the lives of the handicapped (mentally or physically) "less equal" than others -- and if so, is it okay to kill them? How about the elderly? And who gets to decide?
I think most people believe -- with regret and compunction -- that in some instances (like rape, incest, life of the mother), abortion rights are a necessary evil. That's not because the lives of the unborn children of rape or incest are "less equal" or less valuable than the lives of any other unborn child, but because forcing a woman to carry a child against her will under those circumstances is no less inhumane than an abortion.
But that's a far cry from Williams' proud admission that she feels no concern whatsoever at the prospect of women snuffing at the lives of their own children for no reason, or for any. From asserting that the lives of some human beings (the unborn) don't matter, it isn't that big a leap to wondering "what difference" it makes about how and why some (born) human beings died.
It's all a piece of the same ugly nihilism that asserts that nothing much (besides oneself) matters anyway. And sometimes not even that.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/01/25/nothing-but-nihilism-n1497478
Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so.
By David
Mamet
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
For the saying implies but does not
name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called
“The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily
confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All
of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin,
or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public
servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried
bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by
complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ
initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow
orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As
rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental
determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a
bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The
government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have
fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain
preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows
this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President
Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs”
of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he
“needs.”
But
where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in
charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say
“I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.”
Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It
is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine
needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work;
one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this
diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a
family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the
State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”
The
Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians.
They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters;
men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of
Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each
other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are
no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may
easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster,
mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.
The
Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power
corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The
American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power:
“He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges
dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us
to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our
Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither
swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance …
imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally
altered the forms of our government.”
This
is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was
foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an
individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.
The
Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary
evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and
between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the
individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by
submission to coercion or blandishment.
Healthy
government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens
anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in
pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve
us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence,
those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men.
Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and
rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are
arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced,
else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and
deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable
decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was
and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and
confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.
Many
are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition
comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable
retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of
abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed
citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that
of all crimes involving firearms.
The
Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen
is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in
the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures
that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more
dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not
make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them
accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the
government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities
of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave
the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the
Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less
crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the
government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun,
number of guns, or amount of ammunition.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
One thing is certain: Medicare is a ludicrously easy target for con men and thieves since so much of it is automated and inadequate procedures are in place to verify eligibility. Not only that, Medicare has no tools to go after the money even when they realize the fraud.
They've been trying to deal with Medicare fraud since the 1970's and have failed utterly. Time to use some hi tech tools to protect the taxpayer from the criminals who seek to defraud us, as well as a government too lazy to protect us.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
Medicare bilked of $120 million by illegals, felons
But don't you dare mention the word "reform":Illegal immigrants and prison inmates received more than $120 million in Medicare services from 2009-2011 despite federal law that makes them ineligible for the program, according to two new reports from the HHS inspector general.
The issue, according to the reports, is timing. When Medicare is alerted that someone is incarcerated or undocumented, its contractors help prevent payments from going out the door. But often, Medicare's databases aren't up to date, and improper payments go out.
And Medicare lacks the tools to get the money back.
Nearly 3,000 illegal immigrants made thousands of claims resulting in $91.6 million in services improperly covered by Medicare during the three-year period studied in the report.
Over the same period, more than 135,000 Medicare beneficiaries were incarcerated, a second report shows. The report says that 11,600 inmates submitted more than 75,000 claims and received services worth $33.6 million.
"CMS did not have policies and procedures to review incarceration information on a post-payment basis that would have detected improper payments that the prepayment edit could not prevent," according to the report.Estimates on Medicare fraud are iffy. That's because the government has no way to measure it. One ballpark estimate is 3% of total Medicare expenditures - about $68 billion. But some experts scoff at that number as ridiculously low.
In responses to the reports, CMS agreed to identify improper payments and find ways to try to get the money back in the future, but the agency stopped short of pledging to go after the money already improperly out the door.
One thing is certain: Medicare is a ludicrously easy target for con men and thieves since so much of it is automated and inadequate procedures are in place to verify eligibility. Not only that, Medicare has no tools to go after the money even when they realize the fraud.
They've been trying to deal with Medicare fraud since the 1970's and have failed utterly. Time to use some hi tech tools to protect the taxpayer from the criminals who seek to defraud us, as well as a government too lazy to protect us.
One step forward, two steps back on EPA overreach
Do you want the good news or the bad news first? Let’s start with the bad news. It’s a couple days old, and you need only check the glee at enviro-blogs and Kos to see how unfortunate it is for those of us who like freedom, a thriving economy, and the prosperity they provide.Reuters:
The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to consider reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to set air quality standards, leaving intact a tough new limit on sulfur dioxide emissions in a victory for the Obama administration…The decision certainly strengthens the hand of this rarely rebuked White House, which prefers to make sweeping changes in law without bothering with legislation, anyway. And, while the administration is remaking large parts of the economy via regulation, not legislation, it keeps the country in the dark by ignoring its legal requirement to put forth a unified regulatory agenda twice a year. When the federal government refuses (for the first time since the requirement became law by the way) to provide even basic transparency in its regulatory process, guess who suffers most? Hint: It’s not giant corporations and rich actors with well-funded lobbyists in positions to know what’s coming without the publishing of a unified agenda.
“The EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases during Obama’s first term have been upheld in court, which is a favorable sign for proponents of climate change regulation,” said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor and former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section, in a telephone interview.
Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation does the cost-benefit analysis on the Obama administration’s actions and finds them wanting:
Even though legislative attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have repeatedly failed, the Obama Administration appears bent on traveling this self-defeating path. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Interior, and the Department of Labor are all promulgating stringent emission standards for new power plants that would effectively prohibit construction of new coal-fired electricity generating capacity unless it is equipped with carbon-capture technology—a prohibitively costly technological requirement. The EPA has also introduced costly new air quality standards for hydraulically fractured wells and new fuel efficiency standards that will raise the cost of cars and light-duty trucks, not to mention make them smaller and less safe.But there is some good news. It seems there is still something that exceeds the EPA’s power:
Restricting greenhouse gas emissions, whether unilaterally or multilaterally, will result in significant economic costs for the U.S. economy. This is a serious decision with grave consequences, and Congress needs to step up to prevent these costly, ineffective backdoor policies. Further, the U.S. must not unilaterally assume these burdens as a symbolic gesture hoping that other countries might emulate our example—repeated U.N. negotiations demonstrate the small likelihood of that outcome.
A federal appeals court will not reconsider a decision blocking an Obama administration effort to tighten restrictions on power plant pollution.http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/25/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-on-epa-overreach/
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the administration’s request for a new hearing on Thursday. The court said a majority of its eight active judges opposed rehearing the case.
A three-judge judge panel ruled in August that the Environmental Protection Agency’s cross-state air pollution rule exceeded EPA’s authority. The EPA had said the rule would reduce power-plant pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in neighboring states.
The appeals court panel faulted the EPA for imposing “massive emissions reduction requirements” on upwind states without regard to limits imposed by law.
A spokeswoman for the EPA, Alisha Johnson, says the agency is reviewing the decision.
It's the Message, Morons
On November 6, 2012, almost 66 million Americans traded the nation's future for a chance to worship a false god. In a country of over 315 million people, a minority of eligible voters traded prosperity for the illusion of forced fairness.In reelecting Barack Obama, with fewer votes than in 2008, voters traded harmony for the divisiveness of America's most polarizing president.
Woody Allen said, "eighty percent of success is just showing up." How true, because a little more than 20% of America has successfully forced upon the nation 4 more years of Barack the failure.
Yet, in providing Obama with another term, during which he can continue to remake America in his own image, those 66 million voters convinced the president that he is omnipotent and whatever he wishes is not only wise, but inevitable.
Barack Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation, and most Americans support neither him nor his policies. But, his legions of lackeys, in true minion fashion, back him with all their heart, and since they have successfully controlled the message, they have intimidated the majority into believing they are the minority.
Barack Obama, redolent with the stench of false supremacy, is now convinced that he is the greatest man to have ever lived -- not too difficult a task, since he had always suspected as much anyway.
In any case, he now searches for battles to win -- he doesn't care what they are or the impact they have on the nation. He simply wants to be seen as invincible, victorious and most of all, transformational.
History used to be written by the winners -- as defined by the mainstream media. But, going forward, history will be written by those with a computer, a keyboard, and a care.
Yet, Barack Obama is playing a no-lose game. Even if his policies fail (destiny is a bitch), no one will be able to deny he was transformational. Spike Lee was right -- the definitive history of the United States will now be delineated into pre-Barack and post-Barack eras.
Did you hear? In January, Barack Obama forced the Republicans in Congress to accept the Obama middle class tax cuts, while protecting government investment in the programs Americans support.
Political parties by their very nature are about communication and messaging. A party's political purpose is to seek like-minded individuals who agree with their point of view on the vagaries of the day's political blessings and transgressions.
The conservative/moderate message is reasonable and in fact, accepted by a plurality of Americans. Yet, Republicans are as horrible at communicating as the Barack-led Democrat/liberal coalition is at governing.
Sure... Obama controls the press as if he has in his possession a picture of each and every editor and columnist in a compromising position with either a live boy or a dead girl. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- the "live boy" part, at least -- providing they're over the age of consent. The "dead girl" part would be wrong, just plain wrong, whatever their age... but I digress.
Whatever it is, no matter what he says, he is never questioned or challenged. And with every interviewer deliberately fluffing Barack -- the worst president this nation has ever had seems to only get worse -- drifting farther away from reality as he moves further from the truth.
Obama was outraged when Susan Rice was forced to withdraw from consideration as Secretary of State after withering criticism of her role in the Benghazi cover-up. Not at the opposition, mind you -- he craves any and all opposition as another opportunity to ridicule and embarrass those who dare to disagree. It was her retreat from the field of battle that irked him.
He was looking forward to the fight and she deprived him of it -- which is why he did not offer her the Director of the NSC appointment, a position that doesn't need Senate approval. She wouldn't sacrifice for his amusement, which is unacceptable to a king. She is dead to him now. Notice, you haven't heard much about her lately, except of course when Hillary threw her under the bus during her congressional testimony on the Libyan debacle. But, then again:
"What difference does it make at this point?"
Then he nominated John Kerry as Secretary of State. Kerry is probably not the first anti-American applying for the job, but he certainly is one of the most vociferous. It was a shock to Barack that there was so little opposition.
He had to pick up his game. Therefore, for the Department of Defense, he chose an anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-defense-spending Chuck Hagel.
That provided the dissent Obama craved. Yet, it is already shaping up to be a battle he will win easily. Not that he is opposed to that -- it's just that it would be so much more fun for him if the whole thing could be dragged out, providing ample time to belittle his opponents in front of hand-picked adoring crowds.
Wow, nominating and getting approval for a Jew-hating unilateral disarmer, who is ambivalent on the subject of Iran attaining nuclear weapons, is a victory for sure, but probably one too quickly won, and not embarrassing or demoralizing enough for the opposition -- which Obama defines as anyone not kneeling before his brilliance.
Well... off to another golf course, or the next vacation, to plot future divisive forays into destroying all those who don't recognize him as a deity. There are not enough hours in the day -- perhaps he can change that -- maybe Valerie can write up an executive order.
And next, we have the nomination of Jacob Lew for Treasury. He has long been considered the most partisan of Obama appointees. His nomination is designed to give Obama another opportunity to destroy all opposition and perhaps afterward, stride down a boulevard somewhere where adoring adorers can throw palm fronds at his feet -- just ask Newsweek (it used to be a magazine), he is after all, the "second coming."
...And, what an inaugural speech -- he basically said:
"I'm not going to cut spending. In fact, I'm going to increase spending. Er... I meant investment, on things like climate change, because I...
Did
I say "I?" I mean..."we," we have a responsibility to take collective
action to heal the planet -- regardless of economic growth and employment, or the price of gasoline, home heating oil and electricity.
...And,
I'm going to do it on my own, since the constitution is an outdated
document that needs to adapt to me, not the other way around.
...And, if I can't increase taxes
enough to cover my spending, I will just borrow the money. And in 4
years, it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it --America
will have been transformed.
...Oh, and by the way, anyone who disagrees with me is evil."
"You lie."
And... I am all for the sequester, which was designed by Barack during the last debt ceiling debate, way back in 2011, as a poison pill, to cut defense and discretionary spending by equal amounts over a 10 year period. He wanted cuts that would make everyone miserable, thinking he would benefit politically through their cancellation, and he liked the alliteration; he is after all, a master orator.
"We need to seriously discuss a suspension of the sequester."
Yet this is the age of Barack, the age of misery -- embrace the suck -- Defense will survive. And, let's face it, Hagel is going to decimate the nation's defense anyway -- that's why Barack picked him -- why not get some actual spending cuts in the process on the discretionary side?
Look... it's the message, morons -- at some point, the opposition has to stop being cowed by Barack and his minions and stand up and tell the president:
"You lie."
It doesn't matter what the press says, controlling the narrative is about aggression. See Chris Christie -- he is immensely popular, despite being the one Republican most responsible for 4 more years of Barack, with his unabashedly effeminate prancing arm in arm with Obama during Sandy.
Or... look at Barack; he doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks.
Barack Obama must be opposed, vocally and vociferously on all fronts -- confronted and ridiculed, just as he does to his opposition, just as Christie does.
It doesn't matter what the media says -- they have smeared their lipstick in service of Barack for a long time and will continue to do so -- we will never win with them.
When we dare to stop caring how successful we look to people, caring people will dare to look at us as successful.'
Until then, it's the message, morons -- and we have allowed Barack Obama to control the message for way too long.
No comments:
Post a Comment