By Doc Vega
As if the federal courts finally realized their responsibility to uphold the US Constitution recently, the recess appointments made by President Obama in 2011 have been rescinded. A three judge panel determined that President Obama has abused his powers acting even when the Senate was essentially still in session. All National Labor Board appointees will no longer occupy their positions and no further quorum for their operation exists. Richard Cordray’s selection created consternation last year among members of Congress who once again saw the President bypassing due process.
Losing the power to abuse
Furthermore, the judges ruled that the President no longer has the power of appointment during Congressional intrasessions, periods in which the House is closed and the representatives are out-of-town or on vacation for days or weeks. In the future, the President would only be allowed to make such appointments only at the end of the year once Congress has adjourned. This ruling will greatly limit the appointment powers of future presidents whom the courts reasoned that allowing a President to set appointments according to his own scope of determination which would violate the separation of powers according to the US Constitution. This ruling would also limit the President’s discretion on such appointments to the end of Senate’s session for the year.
If this decision handed down by the 3 judge panel is affirmed by the Supreme Court it could signify a shift in the judicial climate that has allowed many favorable rulings of questionable merit to prevail in President Obama’s favor over the last 4 years. Maybe the courts have suddenly become aware of their responsibility to curtail governmental misconduct even in the executive branch where there has been little evidence of constraint during the Obama administration.
An antiquated use of law
Originally when Congress first held session during the early years of the Republic, recess appointments were only considered to be emergency powers acts to be used by US presidents during the long periods of absence by the Congress of that time. Now with Congress in session during large portions of the year there is little need for a president to make such emergency appointments and would seem to indicate a political decision rather than a necessary selection that could be handled when the Senate and Congress are active during the majority of the calendar year.
White House response
Of course, the Obama White House expressed disapproval over the decision with spokesman, Jay Carney, voicing the administration’s dissent. Further impact of this reversal of the prior appointment could be over a number of such actions that have transpired over the last year further constraining President Obama’s judicial agenda.
Protecting the public from the government
According to the lawyer who successfully litigated the case, Noel Francisco, the law was not about protecting Congress from the president or the president from Congress, it is about protecting the people from the government itself. This seems like an encouraging action on the part of the US court system, but it will take much more legal review and rulings to begin to reset the current course of the federal government.
The source of all our fiscal problems occurred in this year during a recess period
One might recall that during a crucial recess in 1913 the infamous Revenue Act was supposedly ratified. While the majority of Congress and the Senate were gone for the Christmas holiday, a vote was taken on a national income tax and electing a central bank to oversee US monetary policy and currency printing. Philander Knox, an attorney who had worked for a number of rich families was hired to pull off the mission, now as secretary of State, to enslave the US money markets. A vote was taken and as several states did not vote but declared “Pass” which meant that they were undecided on the issue and chose to pass up voting on the referendum were instead counted as, yes, votes. Before very long the Woodrow Wilson progressive administration had succeeded in placing the monetary control of the nation under the control of a cartel of private European bankers. Now Americans would begin to pay ever-increasing amounts of their income to the government, but ultimately to the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. They argued that this arrangement would stabilize American currency and money supply yet in 1929 the stock market crash occurred followed by the Great Depression. The myth of a central bank ensuring a smooth economic road had been wrapped, delivered, and unveiled to an American public who were already unwittingly enslaved without knowing it. America existed for 75 years without a central European bank and had flourished. Now, the future of America was not only controlled but doomed. Hence, the state we are now in.