President Obama’s stunning appointments of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and of three more bureaucrats to the National Labor Relations Board has been described by many observers as a serious blow to the Constitution and the separation of powers.

In addition to the strong Constitutional argument against the President’s actions, there are several signs that the President’s interpretation of recess appointments has not always been the same. As Andrew Grossman points out that several weeks ago, President Obama signed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut which had been passed by the Senate in a pro forma session. As Grossman explains if the Senate was actually on recess, it couldn’t have passed the bill and the President couldn’t have signed it.

And as the Washington Examiner noted, President Obama’s own deputy solicitor general admitted recess appointments can’t be made with the Senate in session during oral arguments before the Supreme Court last year.

It would seem the President is trying to have it both ways. Check out our newest video which highlights these are other points to explain why the President’s decision was unconstitutional.


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.