In response to:

Obama's Act of Constitutional Disobedience

Kibitzer Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:45 AM
The recess appointment power was provided because the Congress was envisioned as a part time body at time that the Constitution was written, and it was at that time seen as inappropriate, given the infrastructure of the time, for the Senate to be brought into session for the sole purpose of confirming appointees to each position that might become vacant throughout the time the Senate was not in session (on recess). The positions on the NLRB became vacant while the Senate was in session; thus, they are clearly outside of the provisions of Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the appointments were indeed unconstitutional.
Kibitzer Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 11:47 AM
(Continued)
The fact that other Presidents may similarly have made unconstitutional appointments is irrelevant. They were not challenged in the courts so those appointments were allowed to stand by the Senate at the time. To argue otherwise is like a lawyer arguing that other people have gotten away with murder, so you cannot now convict my client of this murder.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the crazy idea that the president has the power to make recess appointments while the Senate is not in recess.

"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," Chief Judge David B. Sentelle wrote....