The decision by the Washington, D.C. appeals court against Obama on January 25 has implications far beyond what most media coverage has mentioned.
FROM HIM AROUND NOON ON TV…
The
decision by the Washington, D.C. appeals court against Obama on January 25 has
implications far beyond what most media coverage has mentioned. Below are
the remarks of Lyndon LaRouche at his webcast that day, followed by the
LaRouche PAC report on the decision.
interesting news
that was given to me today, earlier, and that is that I never
have seen in my life such a parade of implicit indictments of a
President of the United States as was reported to me today. I’m
not going to comment on the details of this report, but I simply
say that it comes as a blessed sign from Heaven or something like
that, and it should be greeted as such. It’s obvious, what is
obvious, without going into the details which were better stated
by relevant legal and judicial authorities than by me, but I can
say that what I’ve heard today — and I do understand what I’ve
heard — that this is probably the greatest indictment of an
incumbent President of the United States that I’ve ever heard. If
there’s one that occurred [more] ominous than this one, I don’t
know what it was. And I think I know the history of the United
States pretty well. But that comes not as a finality of anything,
because this situation is subject to all kinds of reversals back
and forth, but the fact that such a counter to the President’s
behavior has been stated publicly by a Federal court, is in
itself a very important development, even without trying to
interpret what has been said. But the implications of it, as any
plain language review of it would say, is this man has been
slapped down back and forward repeatedly through the whole
reading of these charges. And that does mean there is a
qualitative shift in the political situation inside the United
States, which the reading of these charges, conclusions I
presume, have been delivered. I don’t think any President could
withstand what has been read against him with such precision, in
the history of the United States. Some people may have hated
someone more than they hated this fellow, but they certainly have
placed the charges, and I don’t think that without the equivalent
of some kind of coup d’etat in support of the President, that he
can withstand this. If these charges are presented and they’re
concluded and if the consequences follow, this man is probably on
the way out of office, barely since the time he was re-installed
in it. So that’s probably a double whammy in this case.
What this does show, with conclusion, which I can
speak to
on that account, is that after these charges have been placed and
reported by the Federal court, that this President is in deep
trouble. And that much is clear. Now what it means for the rest
of us is, that the situation was so bad, in terms of the
Congress, that the Congress should have delivered precisely these
kinds of charges beforehand. And undoubtedly, there were people
inside the Congress, particularly the Senate, who would have
proceeded on these charges if encouraged to do so. And I think
that has to be considered a factor; that all the ideas that
somehow Obama has come off clean on the basis of his
re-installation as President, that that is in doubt now. I don’t
believe that any President, unless he has the powers to conduct a
coup d’etat, could remain in office under the continuation of the
list of charges which have been presented as conclusions by the
Federal court.
Court
of Appeals Strikes Down Obama’s Violation of Constitutional Separation of
Powers
PM
the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 47-page ruling today, Jan. 25, 2013,
upholding the U.S. Constitution against Executive branch violation of the
Constitutional separation of powers, in its ruling that President Obama violated
the Constitution in making recess appointments when the Senate was, indeed, in
session.
extends far beyond the specific case which engendered that decision, as the
Court recognized when it stated from the outset, that “while the posture
of the petition is routine, as it developed, our review is not.” Its
aggressive defense of the separation of powers and the constitutional right of
the Courts to judge the legality of laws (citing, amongst others, the decisive
case of Marbury v. Madison that “it is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”)
bears implications for other immediate, grave cases of Constitutional
violations by President Obama. Just two weeks from now, on Feb. 7th, a federal
court in that same court circuit is scheduled to hear the Department of
Justice’s motion to dismiss the House of Representatives case against Attorney
General Eric Holder’s stonewalling of Congressional supoenas on “Fast and
Furious.”
upon the President’s violations of the War Powers Act, and Sen. John Kerry’s
defense of that violation.
an appeal of a decision taken by the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB),
filed on the grounds that the NLRB decision was illegal because three of its
required five members had been appointed as alleged “recess
appointments” by President Obama on Jan. 4, 2012, when the Senate had
declared itself in pro forma session, thus subverting
Constitutional requirements for Senate advice and consent on such appointments.
Obama asserted that he could determine when the Senate was in session or not,
and made the appointments.
decision void, on the grounds that Obama making appointments when the Senate
was in session violates the Constitution’s Recess Appointment Clause. The
decision centers on addressing the latter issue. It is clearly written,
moreover, to uphold the Constitutional principle of the separation of powers as
a whole, not merely in the case of recess appointments, delivering an implicit
broadside against the recent assertions of the alleged powers of a so-called
Unitary Executive. As the decision argues: “The Constitution’s separation
of powers features, of which the Appointments Clause is one, do not simply
protect one branch from another. These structural provisions serve to protect
the people, for it is ultimately the people’s rights that suffer when one
branch encroaches on another” [emphasis in original].
issued by the Office of Legal Council, which asserts that “the President
therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform
its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess
appointments.”
Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would
eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The checks and balances
that the Constitution placed on each branch of government serve as `self-executing
safeguard[s] against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the
expense of the other.’ [citing a 1976 court decision]. An interpretation of
`the Recess’ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess
would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent
requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at
any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch or even when the
Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot
be the law.”
intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification
of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent
presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments… Recent
presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we
recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their
understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully
thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the
supreme law.”
asserted by the Obama White House, that it can violate the Constitution on
grounds that “administrative efficiency” requires it to do so, are
rejected out of hand. The court dismissed the NLRB’s argument that the Court
must uphold Obama’s appointments, in order to avoid the “dire
consequences” which could result from its overturning of his appointments,
leaving “the President unable to fulfill his chief constitutional
obligation to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’.”
cannot accept an interpretation of the Constitution completely divorced from
its original meaning in order to resolve exigencies created by — and equally
remediable by — the executive and legislative branches. In any event, 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. As the Supreme Court observed in INS v. Chadha,
`the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in
facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is
contrary to the Constitution.’ 4562 U.S. at 994. It bears emphasis that
`[c]onvenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks
of democratic government. Idim.”
NESARA- Restore America – Galactic News
2013-01-29 09:15:58
Source: http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-decision-by-washington-dc-appeals.html
Source:
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world. Anyone can join. Anyone can contribute. Anyone can become informed about their world. "United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
LION'S MANE PRODUCT
Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules
Mushrooms are having a moment. One fabulous fungus in particular, lion’s mane, may help improve memory, depression and anxiety symptoms. They are also an excellent source of nutrients that show promise as a therapy for dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases. If you’re living with anxiety or depression, you may be curious about all the therapy options out there — including the natural ones.Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend has been formulated to utilize the potency of Lion’s mane but also include the benefits of four other Highly Beneficial Mushrooms. Synergistically, they work together to Build your health through improving cognitive function and immunity regardless of your age. Our Nootropic not only improves your Cognitive Function and Activates your Immune System, but it benefits growth of Essential Gut Flora, further enhancing your Vitality.
Our Formula includes: Lion’s Mane Mushrooms which Increase Brain Power through nerve growth, lessen anxiety, reduce depression, and improve concentration. Its an excellent adaptogen, promotes sleep and improves immunity. Shiitake Mushrooms which Fight cancer cells and infectious disease, boost the immune system, promotes brain function, and serves as a source of B vitamins. Maitake Mushrooms which regulate blood sugar levels of diabetics, reduce hypertension and boosts the immune system. Reishi Mushrooms which Fight inflammation, liver disease, fatigue, tumor growth and cancer. They Improve skin disorders and soothes digestive problems, stomach ulcers and leaky gut syndrome. Chaga Mushrooms which have anti-aging effects, boost immune function, improve stamina and athletic performance, even act as a natural aphrodisiac, fighting diabetes and improving liver function. Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules Today. Be 100% Satisfied or Receive a Full Money Back Guarantee. Order Yours Today by Following This Link.
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,687,233,275 |
| Stories: | 8,388,358 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
