Here Are the Results of Biden's Physical
Biden Blows Off Illegal Alien Crime While Touting a False Narrative
This Is Why Biden Didn't Take a Cognitive Test As Part of His...
Google's AI Engine Has a Hitler Problem
The DOJ Targets a Journalist
Cuomo: From Nursing Home Killer to Bimbo Enabler
The US's Economic Freedom Score Continues to Plummet
Illinois Become the Third State to Remove Trump From Primary Ballot
Chaos Erupts After Winsome Sears Calls Transgender Lawmaker ‘Sir'
Biden Reportedly Refuses to Confront China Over Fentanyl Due to His Ties to...
SCOTUS Will Decide If Trump Can be Prosecuted on Election Interference Charges
'Shut Down the Border': Rep. Steube Sounds Off After Illegal Immigrant Arrested for...
John Kennedy Gets Pro-Abortion Professor to Make Stunning Admission
Here's How Much That 'Uncommitted' Vote Accounted for in Michigan
Here's How Biden's Border Crisis Is Impacting This Small Midwestern City

NLRB Bill Key Test for the Senate

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

On April 12th the House passed H. R. 1120, the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor Management Relations Act, on a narrow 219 to 209 vote. The bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from taking any action that requires a quorum unless and until the Senate confirms new board members or the Supreme Court overturns the recent D.C. Circuit decision that found President Obama's purported appointees to the board to be unconstitutional. The bill would not stop workers from petitioning for union elections or restrict NLRB regional offices from accepting and processing unfair labor practice charges.


That this legislation is even necessary shows the remarkable contempt the Obama administration has for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution; that not a single House Democrat voted for the bill shows that the party is willingly to blindly support the White House without regard to the Constitution.

"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 in Noel Canning v. NLRB, "This cannot be the law."

Yet White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted, oddly, that the decision "does not have any impact, as I think the NLRB has already put out, on their operations or functions, or on the board itself." And in the recent House floor debate, a parade of Democrats pretended that Obama's attempt to make a "recess appointment" when the Senate wasn't in recess was comparable to actual recess appointments made by previous presidents.


Let's be clear. The president declared the Senate to be in recess the day after it gaveled into session. The circuit court couldn't have been clearer, but the NLRB keeps making decisions anyway.

It's creating paralyzing uncertainty. "Roughly 600 decisions are now constitutionally suspect and that number grows with each new decision," House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline said. "Workers, employers, and unions are in limbo."

The lawless non-recess appointment by the president has begotten more lawlessness. Some companies are following decisions from the board, while others are ignoring them. Lots of people are paying lots of lawyers to do work that may have to be done all over again. It's a mess, and everybody would be well-served by at least putting the board on hold until the Supreme Court rules later this year.

H.R. 1120 is a simple and effective solution to this problem, and has, no thanks to Democrats, passed the House. The question now is whether Senate Democrats will be willing to abdicate their own power of advice and consent. This is about much more than the NLRB.


If Senate Democrats refuse to take up the bill, or take it up and vote against it, voters can reasonably assume that they are unwilling to require advice and consent, one of the core constitutional duties of their office. Such a dereliction should give voters pause.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos