Right v. Left Debate: Should U.S. Supreme Court Strike Down the Executive Branch's Poaching of Recess Appointment Authority from the Senate?
Jan 14, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Amy Ridenour in ConstitutionalLaw, Labor, Labor Unions, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Unions, White House

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case for the separation of powers, National Labor Relations Board v. Canning.

This is a case testing the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's effort to steal some power from the legislative branch.

In short, the Obama Administration is claiming the president has the authority to decide when the Senate is in recess, and to make recess appointments (temporary appointments without Senate approval that ordinarily would require Senate approval) when he determines the Senate is in recess, even if the Senate disagrees.

The effect of allowing the Administration's point of view to stand would be:

Miguel Estrada, arguing against the president's position before the court, told the Justices yesterday, "there is no power in the Constitution to use the Recess Appointments Clause to overcome the opposition of the Senate to the president's nominees."

The Court is tackling three questions:

On the Main Street Radio Network's Alan Nathan Show yesterday, Democratic strategist Bob Weiner and I reviewed the issues at stake in this case and why, in my view at least, and apparently Alan Nathan's as well, the President's power grab should be soundly rejected by the Court. I also predicted that it will be rejected.

If so inclined, enjoy.

A transcript of the oral arguments before the court can be found online here.

Article originally appeared on A Conservative Blog (http://www.conservativeblog.org/).
See website for complete article licensing information.