Does President Obama actions violate the oath he took to uphold the United State

1. 67

   tsadjatkoposted 11 years ago

   Does President Obama actions violate the oath he took to uphold the United States Constitution?
   
   A federal appeals court panel ruled Friday that  violated the Constitution in making recess appointments. They said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions.The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the break between sessions of Congress.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   I believe the president's actions go beyond just overlooking the technicalities.  His actions today and over the past four years indicate that he endlessly looks for issues on which he can press against the Constitutional bubble and see how far he can press before his hand is called or if it is called.  Each time he does this gives him one more piece of the answer as to how much latitude he as to attempt to wield the power or the "perceived power" of his office in terms of his own agenda.  This should be a form of behavior which the American public has zero tolerance, especially when it occurrs on a recurring frequency.  Obviously, a president who held the Constitution in high esteem would err on the side of caution if any issue broached the subject of Constitutional violation.  Every member of Congress should feel outraged that the president would attempt to employ such methods to bypass the checks and balances process....all for what end?  Obviously an agenda which he cannot openly discuss with the American people.  ~WB

   replyreport
3. 60

   ib radmastersposted 11 years ago

   It is an act of begging for forgiveness, instead of asking if he had the authority.
   If no one challenged him then he had de facto authority.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure I understand your answer - if what he did was unconstitutional then he broke the law and violated his oath of office whether it was challenged or not. Nowhere does he have authority to violate the constitution.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ex post facto laws are prohibited, laws passed after the fact. Since the issue in question was not directly addressed by the existing statutes and jurisprudence, it would be assumed to be legal until the court rule otherwise.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      A Little TRUTHposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Larry Wall, ib radmasters said de facto, not ex post facto.  Example, the Federal Government has de facto authority (by presumption, not by law) over the States, and that’s why States can have marijuana legal, but it’s still a federal crime in the US

      replyreport
4. 0

   Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

   Every public action by a public official, the president and the congress are assumed to be legal until ruled otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction.
   
   Many presidents have undertaken acts that were later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I have not read the statutes regarding presidential appointments. I know some require the advice and consent of the Senate. However, there is no mention of appointments made when the Senate is not in session, and it would appear that the Senate could have voided the appointments when they returned to session.
   
   Many laws and regulations are interpreted as a result of court challenge. There is nothing new with this case.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This discussion has little to do with the legalities that may be involved but is over race and political position of each of us. Jefferson did not have authority to make the Louisiana Purchase, F. Roosevelt, push the limit and do not forget Nixon.

      replyreport
5. 0

   scottcgruberposted 11 years ago

   The Presidential Oath does not require the President to uphold the Constitution. The exact wording is "preserve, protect, and defend." Obedience is not required, nor should it be.
   
   The President is allowed to sign bills and executive orders into law that violate the Constitution. It is up to the courts to challenge the actions of the President and Congress.
   
   That said, this case has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is just dirty politics. Republicans in the Senate have been holding up appointments for four years now with procedural holds, preventing the administration from filling important executive branch leadership positions, and keeping the government from doing its job. Recess appointments have been the President's only hope of getting these leadership positions filled. The minority members of the Senate used a technicality to keep the Senate "in session" while it was on recess to deliberately prevent the President from making recess appointments. The White House called their bluff with the NLRB appointments, and now a panel of Republican-appointed judges has ruled against them.
   
   This isn't Presidential overreach or sign of a White House gone wild. It's partisan bickering using procedural technicalities and the courts. We'll see how the Supreme Court rules.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So uphold doesn't mean "preserve, protect, and defend" ? in your paralell universe? "...nothing to do with the Constitution" ? So on what basis does the admnistration argue they are right? DUH The constitution - what planet did you say you are from?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Uphold does not mean "preserve, protect, and defend" in this universe. Look them up in the dictionary and you will see.
      
      This case is not a test of Constitutional law. It is about partisan procedural bickering.

      replyreport
6. 70

   Gawthposted 11 years ago

   Of course he did.  He intended to do it.  He is determined to waken the Constitution in every way possible.  His goal is to make the Presidential Office an imperial one.  He is blazing a trail with all his "iffy" Executive Orders.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I do not understand why people are so upset. Other presidents have made appointments during periods when the Congress was not in session. They were challenged on the floor of the Senate and if the Senate did not concur then the person lost the post.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Those other presidents weren't black communist socialist reptilian secret muslims.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Scottcgrue:r I will agree, the other presidents to engage in this practice were not black. Your bias against the current president is obvious and a very sad commentary.Would you approve of another president who met your standards doing the same thing

      replyreport
   4. 0

      scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously?

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, you don't understand, unlike other presidents,  this time Barack made appointments during a proforma session which is not a recess. That is the whole point and the pro forma session was the creation of Hary Reid '07 to block Bush appts. Ironic

      replyreport
7. 78

   A Little TRUTHposted 11 years ago

   No, Obama’s actions don’t violate his oath.  scottcgruber  is right, “preserve, protect and defend” is the only requirement.  The full text of the Presidential Oath of Office, as specified by Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution, reads:
   
   “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
   
   If he were to lock the Constitution in a safe and post a guard, that should suffice.  It seems like that’s exactly what he’s done.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are kidding aren't you? Making unconstitutional appointments is breaking constitutional law. How can he be considered to be protecting defending or preserving it if he willingly violates it? Lock it in a safe? -  YOU ARE NUTS.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is all a matter of timing. Normally, you expect to get approval first, but no law says you have to. Many appointments by many presidents have been done this way.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      A Little TRUTHposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Dont Taze Me Bro, No, I’m not kidding.  May I suggest to look up preserve, protect, defend - they have nothing to do with obedience or allegiance.  You know lawyers like to play word games.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very Little Truth. Article VI clause 3 of the United States Constitution requires that all who hold office in the United States take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Oaths taken are to uphold the constitution whatever the wording.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Recess appointments are a technicality, not a violation of the law. This is just conservative grandstanding to try and make the President seem like a dictator. This decision is dirty politics done via the courts.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So now your first argument about semantics is destroyed you skip  to another phoney argument - it appears there are no lengths to which you will go to protect your Messiah. Obama can't be wrong, must be the entire court system & political conspir

      replyreport
   7. 0

      scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, my original argument is still correct. The point is that you are making a huge stink over nothing. Recess appointments are not a dictatorship. Maybe they technically violate the separation of powers, but so does Congressional obstructionism.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't make any stink - you and a few others did that with bogus arguments that have nothing to do with the question. Congressional obstructionism? So you hold Democrats responsible too? I doubt that. You really have no more credibility.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I fault Democrats in the Senate for passing rules that allow one Senator to hold up appointments indefinitely. But mainly I blame Republicans for playing dirty politics. That's all this is.

      replyreport
   10. 78

       A Little TRUTHposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The Art VI oath is to “support” -still not obey.  The bigger issue is, if a president obeyed the Constitution, there would be no Federal Reserve, no gun control, no income tax, no foreign aid, no corp. bailouts, no troops in 100 countries, no NAFTA…

       replyreport
   11. 67

       tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       ALT Why are you stuck on now another word - uphold and support are synonymous and this is not a reasonable argument by any stretch. You just are unable to admit when you are WRONG, perhaps a sign of immaturity?

       replyreport
   12. 60

       Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       search these pages for the word uphold and you will find it - uphold and support are synonymous, if you care to be honest about it.
       
       http://utahlinks.org/learn/docs/Bradley_Oaths.pdf
       
       http://www.senate.gov/civics/constituti … tution.htm

       replyreport
   13. 78

       A Little TRUTHposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, support, uphold, even defend are synonymous - neither means obey. Obama doesn’t obey the Constitution, just gives it lip service.  He makes people think he wants to, but never swore he would obey it, so he didn’t break his oath by not obeying it

       replyreport
   14. 67

       tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Are you crazy? Iif you don't obey it how can you be supporting it? If you pledge to support anything and then go against it, or disobey it you are a hipocrit which means you do not support (or uphold) it. That limb you are on broke a while ago CRASH!

       replyreport
   15. 60

       Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yaknow what, A LittleTruth may be right. Obama might think that way, he is like Clinton when it comes to twisted reasoning (remember it depends on what is means) But if that is Obama's take he's dead wrong. This question isn't What does Obama think?

       replyreport
   16. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court decisions, do all of these anti-Obama arguments become invalid, or will they switch to saying that the Supreme Court is rewriting and not interpreting it and related laws?

       replyreport
   17. 78

       A Little TRUTHposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Obama has a Harvard law degree & knows the legal definitions of words.  Briefly:
       
       preserve: keep safe from harm
       protect: ditto & indemnify
       defend: keep secure
       support: answer arguments in favor of something
       
       None means obey, LEGALLY - maybe c

       replyreport
8. 64

   CrescentSkiesposted 11 years ago

   I will answer this with a very general statement that is nearly 100% true.
   
   If they're a politician they've already broken their oath.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do I detect  a note of cynicism? Rather an extreme point of view, wouldn't you say? Although I can understand why you feel that way. Maybe the problem isn't the politicians but an uninformed  electorate who keeps them in office.

      replyreport