M2RB: The Who
Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh, who are you(Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh, who the fuck are you?
Oh, who are you(Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh, who the fuck are you?
Non, vous n'êtes pas l'état!
By Todd Gaziano
President Obama seems to
take pleasure in acting unilaterally in matters that are properly shared with
Congress, especially if his acting alone energizes his base and dispirits
conservatives and others who cling to constitutional order. He may believe it
is worth taking the risk that a court will overturn a few of his illegal
actions. But what if a court does more than simply invalidate the actions
themselves?
Today, a unanimous ruling by a three-judge
panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down President Obama’s
purported “recess appointments” of three members of the NLRB — and went further
in rebuking the administration in three important respects.
First, today’s ruling is
much broader than expected — it severely limits the president’s
recess-appointment power. Two days after the illegal recess appointments were
made, Ed Meese and I wrote an op-ed
in the Washington Post explaining an important but narrow ground
on which a court might overturn them. We also warned of the effects that
litigation could have:
President Obama’s flagrant violation of the
Constitution not only will damage relations with Congress for years to come but
will ultimately weaken the office of the presidency. There eventually may be
litigation over the illegal appointments, but it will be a failure of
government if the political branches do not resolve this injustice before a
court rules.
Our
constitutional-law-professor-in-chief ignored this advice and is now hoist on
his own petard. He is worse off than he was when he started, because the
court’s ruling invalidates all appointments made during recesses that occur in
the middle of a Senate session. Under the ruling, appointments will be possible
only in the recesses between sessions of the Senate, which are unlikely to
occur, at least until the end of this year, without unusual Senate action.
Moreover, two of the
three judges also ruled on an even broader constitutional ground, holding that
the vacancy to be filled must actually arise during such an intersession
recess, not prior to that period. The third judge expressed no opinion on this
last issue.
The second setback is that
13 months’ worth of rulings, regulations, and other actions by the NLRB are now
in question, because without the illegal recess appointments the NLRB lacked a
quorum to act during all that time. The White House is disputing this, or at
least Jay Carney is trying to, but it is hard to see how today’s ruling is
limited to “once case, one company.” The courts have doctrines that might
ameliorate some harsh results regarding pay and such, but most of the board’s
actions are at least in doubt. Thus, not only must the president secure proper
Senate confirmation for these officials, but the NLRB likely must start over
when it has a quorum.
The third setback for
the administration is that many of the actions of the Consumer Financial
Protection Board (CFPB) are in doubt as well. Richard Cordray, who received a
purported recess appointment on the same day and in the same manner as the
three invalid NLRB members, would have been the first head of that agency.
Thus, no prior head of the agency could have made lawful delegations of
authority. Moreover, the CFBP’s organic statute provides that no acting head
may issue regulations. The eventual effect of today’s decision on pending and
future CFPB actions will take many months to sort out, but the rest of the D.C.
circuit is bound by the ruling today unless the entire appeals court (as
opposed to the three-judge panel) or the Supreme Court reverses it.
Our unilateral president
must take his unilateral medicine. The administration may appeal today’s loss
to the entire D.C. court, but that is also dangerous, since there are other
grounds on which the court might sustain the ruling, including the one Ed Meese
and I presented in the piece linked to above. The solicitor general may have
little choice but to use his office’s capital to seek Supreme Court review.
My prediction: The
justices will take the case and may narrow the grounds for striking down the
illegal appointments. But I don’t think a Supreme Court majority will see any
pressing need to contort the Constitution to uphold these unilateral actions.
—
Todd Gaziano is the director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at
the Heritage
Foundation and a former lawyer in the Justice Department’s
Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on recess-appointment
matters.
Who Are You? - The Who
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at
home tonight
If you can get up and walk
away"
I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair
Well, who are you? (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
I took the tube back out of town
Back to the Rollin' Pin
I felt a little like a dying clown
With a streak of Rin Tin Tin
I stretched back and I hiccoughed
And looked back on my busy day
Eleven hours in the Tin Pan
God, there's got to be another way
Well, who are you? (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
Oh, who are you(Who are you? Who,
who, who, who?)
Oh Tell me, who are you? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh Who the fuck are you? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
Who are you?
who are who are who are you x11
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?
I really wanna know (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
C'mon tell me who are you? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
Oh, I really wanna know (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
I know there's a place you walked
Where love falls from the trees
My heart is like a broken cup
I only feel right on my knees
I spit out like a sewer hole
Yet still recieve your kiss
How can I measure up to anyone now
After such a love as this?
Well who are you? (Who are you? Who,
who, who, who?)
tell me who are you? (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
oh, I really wanna know? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
tell, tell me who are you? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
I used to check my reflection
Jumping with my cheap guitar
I must of lost my direction
'Cause I ended up a superstar
One night I's in the board room
affected by the human race
You can learn from my mistake but
your posing in my glass again
well who are you? (Who are you? Who,
who, who, who?)
tell me who are you? (Who are you?
Who, who, who, who?)
oh, I really wanna know? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
tell, tell me who are you? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
C'mon, c'mon who? (Who are you? Who,
who, who, who?)
Oh, Who the fuck are you? (Who are
you? Who, who, who, who?)
Who are you? (Who are you? Who, who,
who, who?)
Oh, tell me who are you (Who are
you?, ooo?)
I really wanna to know
Oh, I really want to know
C'mon tell me who are you, you, you?
Who are you?
1 comment:
Slightly OT, my apologies. I HATE white print on black ground. After about three paragraphs it literally makes my eyes hurt. I would like to read your post, it looks interesting, but I cannot.
Post a Comment