Alexander Hamilton With the recent Supreme Court decisions ranging from freedom of religion to expression, many pundits seem to have missed or are ignoring the extent of the overreach of the Court. I mean, we all can agree that the decisions regarding freedom of expression and religion have undertaken ideological bents, but the decisions are clearly within the Court's discretion under Article III of the Constitution and related precedents under Case Law. But while pundits have been railing against perceived "Presidential Overreach" (see litigation stunt by Speaker John Boehner), no one has bothered to comment on the concurring decision led by s of Justice Scalia, in the case of NLRB v. Noel Canning, et al.,
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/NLRB_v_Noel_Canning_No_121281_US_June_26_2014_Court_Opinion. You see, the decision to limit the Executive's use of Recess Appointments has been established to a standard that the Framers would hardly recognize, let alone endorse.
According to the Court's opinion, the President may no longer make Recess Appointments when the Senate is in "Pro Forma" session, even though the Senate, by resolution agreed not to conduct any business other than opening and closing the session with the banging of the gavel. The Court reasoned that in the event of an appointment being made, the Senate may still be capable of meeting its Constitutional Role of "Advice and Consent" and therefore, cannot be considered by the Executive as "In Recess." The majority determined, however, that if the Pro Forma session extended ten (10) days or longer, than the Executive may move forward with a Recess Appointment. Okay, we get that. What we don't hear about is the Concurring Opinion wherein four Justices ruled that the President should no longer have the Constitutional authority to make any Recess Appointments if the Senate claims it is in session, even if it is meeting just to collectively eat grilled cheese sandwiches (okay, I added that example). Nevertheless, these Justices actually proclaimed that the Senate alone should decide forever if the President can or cannot make Recess Appointments, regardless of the Separation of Powers inherent in the Constitution. More importantly, these Justices would deny the power actually granted the Executive under Article II (as if it never existed in the Constitution at all). From the decision itself, the majority points out Justice Scalia's own attempts to re-write the Constitution; "JUSTICE SCALIA would render illegitimate thousands of recess appointments reaching all the way back to the founding era. More than that: Calling the Clause an "anachronism," he would basically read it out of the Constitution. Post, at 12. He performs this act of judicial excision in the name of liberty."
So when the Media perpetuates the myth that the President is a tyrant because of his Imperial efforts to seize control of the Country by ignoring the Constitution, their mentors on the Court (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) have actually begun to write opinions that not only run counter to the actual Constitution, but do so without regard to their role as interpreters and not as Framers. According to the Constitution, We The People, have the right to amend, not justices who have illusions of knowing better than what the Framers actually intended. And THIS is what is known as "Over-Reach!" Be careful folks, the Extremists on the Right are well represented on the Supreme Court. As Framer Alexander Hamilton once wrote; "There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth; and in popular commotions especially, the clamors of interested and factious men are often mistaken for patriotism." Go no further than the Supreme Court to see Over-Reach (mistaken for patriotism) in play! Try to have a great week!
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/NLRB_v_Noel_Canning_No_121281_US_June_26_2014_Court_Opinion. You see, the decision to limit the Executive's use of Recess Appointments has been established to a standard that the Framers would hardly recognize, let alone endorse.
According to the Court's opinion, the President may no longer make Recess Appointments when the Senate is in "Pro Forma" session, even though the Senate, by resolution agreed not to conduct any business other than opening and closing the session with the banging of the gavel. The Court reasoned that in the event of an appointment being made, the Senate may still be capable of meeting its Constitutional Role of "Advice and Consent" and therefore, cannot be considered by the Executive as "In Recess." The majority determined, however, that if the Pro Forma session extended ten (10) days or longer, than the Executive may move forward with a Recess Appointment. Okay, we get that. What we don't hear about is the Concurring Opinion wherein four Justices ruled that the President should no longer have the Constitutional authority to make any Recess Appointments if the Senate claims it is in session, even if it is meeting just to collectively eat grilled cheese sandwiches (okay, I added that example). Nevertheless, these Justices actually proclaimed that the Senate alone should decide forever if the President can or cannot make Recess Appointments, regardless of the Separation of Powers inherent in the Constitution. More importantly, these Justices would deny the power actually granted the Executive under Article II (as if it never existed in the Constitution at all). From the decision itself, the majority points out Justice Scalia's own attempts to re-write the Constitution; "JUSTICE SCALIA would render illegitimate thousands of recess appointments reaching all the way back to the founding era. More than that: Calling the Clause an "anachronism," he would basically read it out of the Constitution. Post, at 12. He performs this act of judicial excision in the name of liberty."
So when the Media perpetuates the myth that the President is a tyrant because of his Imperial efforts to seize control of the Country by ignoring the Constitution, their mentors on the Court (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) have actually begun to write opinions that not only run counter to the actual Constitution, but do so without regard to their role as interpreters and not as Framers. According to the Constitution, We The People, have the right to amend, not justices who have illusions of knowing better than what the Framers actually intended. And THIS is what is known as "Over-Reach!" Be careful folks, the Extremists on the Right are well represented on the Supreme Court. As Framer Alexander Hamilton once wrote; "There are seasons in every country when noise and impudence pass current for worth; and in popular commotions especially, the clamors of interested and factious men are often mistaken for patriotism." Go no further than the Supreme Court to see Over-Reach (mistaken for patriotism) in play! Try to have a great week!
RSS Feed
