UNANIMOUS! Supreme Court Rules Obama’s ‘Recess’ Appointments UNCONSTITUTIONAL

◼ Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. There’s only one problem. - TPNN

The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments.

Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesn’t get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does.

This is the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution’s recess appointment clause has been challenged, as no former president has attempted to usurp powers as wannabe dictator, Barack Obama.

◼ Supreme Court Knocks Down Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab - Terry Eastland/Weekly Standard

In NLRB v. Noel Canning, whatever the differences between the bare majority of five justices led by Justice Breyer and the four dissenters for whom Justice Scalia wrote, there is no question between the contending sides that President Obama acted unconstitutionally in making three ostensible recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

...In acting as he did, Obama became the first president ever to attempt to make midsession recess appointments during a three-day break in Senate business. In achieving such a dubious distinction, Obama arrogated unto himself the authority—which belongs to the Senate alone—to decide whether the upper chamber was in recess or not. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, with all nine Justices in agreement, has refused to be an accomplice in this unconstitutional grasp for power.

◼ The Obama Administration’s No Good, Very Bad Day at the Supreme Court - David French/National Review

Two decisions. Two unanimous Obama administration defeats. Two cases where years of leftist sophistry were undone by short paragraphs of basic constitutional common sense. First, in NLRB v. Canning, the Supreme Court answered a simple question — was the Senate in session when the Obama administration tried to pack the NLRB through recess appointments?

...Next, in McCullen v. Coakley, the Court reached yet another constitutional common-sense conclusion — that the First Amendment protects pro-life speech, especially when numerous other statutes or regulations already prohibit truly unlawful activity, like blocking ingress or egress to an abortion facility. There is nothing unlawful about using a public sidewalk to engage in peaceful, close conversation with women seeking an abortion or with abortion workers....

But our celebrations are muted. We still face almost three more years of an administration that will push its executive authority well past its limits, and — in the Supreme Court — we await with grave concern its opinion next week in the abortion-pill mandate cases, the most significant religious-liberty decision in my adult lifetime.

◼ Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 - John Fund/National Review

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported....

Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.

While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the administration’s argument that a search warrant wasn’t required for the government to look at cell-phone records and data got a lot of attention, it’s not the first time the Obama administration has taken an anti–civil liberties stance. In last year’s case of U.S. v. Jones, the Justice Department essentially tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure should not prevent the government from tracking any American at any time without any reason.
__________________
John Fund, by the way, has a new book out: ◼ Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Spoiler: Things are even worse than you think. - via Instapundit
__________________
Buy a copy ◼ HERE, or join us July 19th at our Sizzlin' Summer GOP Fundraiser - John Fund is our Guest Speaker. Buy your copy there and get it autographed!
__________________

President Nixon’s lawlessness was sneaky, and he had the decency to be ashamed of it. President Obama’s lawlessness is as bland and bloodless as the man himself, and practiced openly, as though it were a virtue.

◼ The Front Man - Kevin D. Williamson/National Review Online

◼ Monday's MOST READ: We kinda knew it would be Kevin Williamson's "The Front Man" by several thousand clicks. - Discussion at Lucianne

"Barack Obama’s administration is unmoored from the institutions that have long kept the imperial tendencies of the American presidency in check. That is partly the fault of Congress, which has punted too many of its legislative responsibilities to the president’s army of faceless regulators, but it is in no small part the result of an intentional strategy on the part of the administration." It is not "partly the fault of the Congress" -- it has been done in collusion with the Democrats who control Congress...first when they controlled both Chambers and now with Senator Reid, who is all too happy to hand over power to create an expansive administrative state. It is not as if Congress miscalculated and mistakenly gave up powers. HE.IS.THEIR.FRONT.MAN. After all, he came out of the legislative, not executive branch...

Obama's Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

◼ Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance. - M. Northrop Buechner/Forbes

The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.

By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again....

The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?

...Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.

◼ Do You Believe Obama This Time? How About Now? …Now?

Once upon a time, Obamacare was “settled” law that was “here to stay.” Or so President Obama said—before Obamacare failed to survive contact with reality.

The reality is that the Administration is delaying the impact of major parts of the law, including the employer mandate and now the benefit mandates for health plans.

There’s a slight problem: As the President so readily reminded us, Obamacare is still the law of the land. Without undoing the law, everything that has people up in arms—the higher costs, mandates, plan cancellations—will still happen.

“No more back-room deals between bureaucrats and liberal activists”

◼ In short, the government agencies — having become politicized and infiltrated by leftwing ideologues — are essentially working in concert with their NGO adversaries to throw fights: the NGOs sue, the government agencies agree to settle, and deals that include regulation favorable to the NGOs become set in bureaucratic stone with no input from the public. - Protein Wisdom

◼ National Editorial: No more back-room deals between bureaucrats and liberal activists - Washington Examiner

Previously in this space, The Washington Examiner described an important new report compiled by an 11-person research team from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce entitled "Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors." The chamber's report identified at least 71 federal court cases since 2009 in which federal agencies -- most often, the Environmental Protection Agency -- made back-room deals with Big Green environmental activist groups like the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians. The activist groups then sued the agency asking the court to order the agency to do what it already agreed to do in the backroom. The group and the agency then told the court that they had settled their "issues" and the court issued a consent decree ratifying the whole rotten procedure.

Sue and settle is anti-democratic because it cuts out of the regulatory process everybody not present in the back-room dickering. Sue and settle is also unconstitutional -- at least in spirit if not fact -- since it supplants elected representatives making law in public with unelected bureaucrats making law behind closed doors. By denying an opportunity for public comment, the process also violates the Administrative Procedures Act that Congress approved in 1946 to insure transparency and accountability in the federal regulatory process. Finally, sue and settle is extraordinarily expensive because agencies typically use it to impose costly regulatory regimens without consideration of less expensive options typically proposed during the preliminary phase of rule-making under the APA.... read the whole thing, at the link