Obama's abuse of power in making three recess appointments ruled unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ruled that President Barack Obama abused his executive powers in making three "recess" appointments last year. The embarassing ruling against the president could now also invalidate hundreds of other appointments made by Obama during previous years of his administration.

The president in response to the ruling claimed to have made the appointments while the Senate was in recess, but the court saw it otherwise and has ruled that the Senate was indeed in session on the date the appointments were made.

In his 46-page rulling, Chief Judge David Sentelle of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote that taking a break or a weekend during a regular working session does not count as being in recess. He said that if this were the case, the president could conceivably make appointments anytime the Senate so much as broke for lunch.

Republicans had argued all along that since they were gaveled in and out of so-called "pro-forma" sessions, they were considered to still be in session.

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) called the ruling "a sound rejection of Obama's flimsy interpretation of the law." He also said the decision "would go along way towards restoring constitutional separation of powers."

These recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board had come under fire from Republican leaders who claimed the appointments were for an agency that was biased in favor of unions. Unions, a formidable and large demographic for Democrats, have been attempting to stack the deck with pro-union appointments to NLRB in hopes of passing new rules and regulations that would make it easier for them to organize new members.

The ruling by the three-judge panel rejected the argument from the Justice Department's legal counsel who claimed that the president has the power to decide that the Senate is unavailible to perform its function of advising and consenting on these matters.

The bottom line is, the president overreached and now has egg on his face. For a president who is also a constitutional lawyer to make such an egregious error is inexcusable and just shows the disregard that this White House has for playing by the rules.

Carl Tobias, a constitutional-law professor at the University of Richmond, said it best: "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."