Did you know that our national anthem... the Star Spangled Banner... has four verses...?
Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed, at the twilight's last
gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the
perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming...
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof, through the night, that our flag was still
there...
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free... and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen, through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host, in dread silence reposes...
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam, of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream...
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O' long may it wave...!
O'er the land of the free... and the home of the brave!
And where is that band, who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war, and the battle's confusion?
A home and a country should leave us no more,
Their blood has wiped out, their foul footstep's
pollution.
No refuge could save, the hireling and slave,
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave?
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave...
O'er the land of the free... and the home of the brave!
Oh, thus be it ever, when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes, and the war's desolation!
Blessed with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued
land, Praise the Power that hath, made and preserved us a
nation...
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"...!
And the star-spangled banner, in triumph shall wave...
O'er the land of the free... and the home of the
brave!Today's Newsbites Theme Song...
3 comments:
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
* FOLKS... BELIEVE ME, I HATE TO SAY THIS... BUT I BELIEVE THE COURT IS WRONG AND OBAMA IS RIGHT ON THIS ONE.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
* FOLKS... WEEKENDS... LONG WEEKENDS... THESE ARE NOT "RECESSES" IN CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN IF A QUORUM OF HOUSE MEMBERS AND SENATORS ISN'T PRESENT FOR WEEKS AT A TIME... THEN THAT'S A RECESS - REGARDLESS OF WHAT CHARADES OUR "HONORABLE" MEMBERS AND SENATORS MAY ENGAGE IN.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
* FAIR ENOUGH...
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
* WE'LL SEE.
White House press secretary Jay Carney called the ruling “novel and unprecedented,” and said it contradicts 150 years of practice by presidents of both parties.
* AND YOU KNOW WHAT, FOLKS... HE HAS A POINT...
* WHILE OBAMA HAS GONE FURTHER THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, HE IS NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO MAKE SUCH APPOINTMENTS BASED UPON THE LOGIC OF "REAL" RECESS vs. CHARADE RECESS.
But Noel Francisco, a lawyer at Jones Day who argued the case for the company that challenged the NLRB appointments, said the court had returned to the Constitution’s intent, which was to make the recess appointment an emergency power for use only when Congress was not available.
* AND PERHAPS IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A CASE. ULTIMATELY THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE. (THE PROBLEM BEING... A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT DON'T ALWAYS GIVE A CRAP WHAT THE CONSTITUTION'S INTENDED MEANING IS!)
“Issues like this — it’s not about protecting the Congress from the president and the president from Congress,” Mr. Francisco said. “The Constitution draws these lines ultimately to limit the government to protect the people.”
* YEP... THAT'S THE THEORY...
In their ruling the judges said their duty is not to speed up the workings of government, but to hold to constitutional principles.
* INDEED!
“If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands,” the judges wrote.
(*NOD*)
The judges said the recess power was created for a time when Congress met only a few months out of the year, and was designed for the president to fill vacancies during the long periods when Congress was not meeting. In modern times, when Congress is almost always capable of meeting, the recess powers should be more circumscribed.
* SO IN THEORY... (*PAUSE*)... THE RECESS ITSELF NO LONGER EXISTS. RIGHT? I MEAN... FOLLOWING THAT LOGIC... CONGRESS COULD DECLARE ITSELF ALWAYS IN SESSION... 365 DAYS A YEAR...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
In the short term, the ruling invalidates one NLRB decision. But over the longer term it could invalidate a year’s worth of decisions by the independent agency, could undercut Mr. Obama’s new consumer watchdog agency set up in the 2010 Wall Street reform law, and could even call into question decisions made by some judges who were given recess appointments.
The case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, and will likely on the definition of what the Constitution means when it says “recess.”
The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate judges and executive branch officials, but the Senate must vote to confirm them before they take office. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president powers “to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”
Those powers have produced centuries of give-and-take, with senators regularly slow-walking nominees and the White House looking for ways to get its nominees in place — including the recess appointment.
Mr. Obama, though, appeared to break new ground by acting at a time when the Senate was meeting every third day, specifically to deny him the chance to make appointments.
* BUT THEY WEREN'T "REALLY" MEETING. THERE WAS NO QUORUM...!!! MOST SENATORS WERE EITHER BACK IN THEIR DISTRICTS OR "FACT FINDING" DOMESTICALLY OR ABROAD AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
The problem is the word “recess” has several meanings in legislative-speak. It can mean a short break during the day, it can mean a break of days or weeks for a holiday, or it can mean the end of a yearly session.
The president argued that even though the Senate was convening every three days, the pro forma sessions didn’t allow any business, and nearly every senator was absent from the chamber, signaling that the Senate wasn’t able to perform its confirmation duties and should be considered essentially in recess.
* EXACTLY!
His opponents had warned that if Mr. Obama’s stance prevailed, then presidents could make appointments when the Senate takes its midday recess for weekly party caucus lunches.
* NOW THAT'S JUST STUPID...
* BOTTOM LINE... THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT A "REAL" - AS IN CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINED - RECESS IS vs. WHAT IT'S NOT.
The judges on Friday ruled that the only clear bright line is when the Senate recesses at the end of the year.
* BUT THE FATAL FLAW WITH THIS "LOGIC" IS WHAT'S TO STOP THE SENATE FROM *NOT* RECESSING AT THE END OF YEAR... FROM SIMPLY CONVENING EVERY THREE DAYS IN PRO FORMA SESSION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR...?!?! (THE ANSWER: NOTHING!)
The judges’ ruling puts them at odds with several other federal appeals courts that have ruled the other way. And another case is making its way through the D.C. circuit and could be heard by another three-judge panel.
Mr. Williams said the Justice Department faces an interesting choice: It could allow those other cases to work their way through the rest of the courts, or it could appeal immediately to the Supreme Court. (The administration could also ask the full D.C. circuit to re-hear the case.)
* LISTEN... FORGET OBAMA... FORGET MCCONNELL. THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO HEAR THIS CASE AND DECIDE THIS CASE ASAP!
Post a Comment