David Rivkin on the SCOTUS review and the last three days of ObamaCare (Part 1)

(Part I of II) David Rivkin goes live on the second hour on Bill Bennett’s ‘Morning In America’ and reviews the Supreme Court and their roles during last three days of the ObamaCare hearings and what to expect next.

Post your comments and thoughts on the SCOTUS ObamaCare hearings and what you think is going to happen next. Follow David Rivkin on Twitter, @DavidRivkin, for the latest news.

 

 

 

David Rivkin on the SCOTUS review and the last three days of ObamaCare

(Part II of II) David Rivkin goes live on Hour 2 of Bill Bennett’s ‘Morning In America’ and reviews the Supreme Court and their roles during last three days of the ObamaCare hearings and what to expect next.

Post your comments and thoughts on the SCOTUS ObamaCare hearings and what you think is going to happen next. Follow David Rivkin on Twitter, @DavidRivkin, for the latest news.

 

Weighing impact of a Supreme Court health care ruling on President election

Day one of SCOTUS hearings on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, does the government have the right to require you as an American to buy health insurance?

The High Court is slated to make a decision in late June. In an interview with Jon Scott, Constitutional Attorney David Rivkin explains what to expect and what the Justices are expected to say.

 

David Rivkin on “Healthcare Law”

David B. Rivkin Jr., an American appellate attorney, political writer and media commentator initiated the public debate on the constitutionality of the healthcare law known as ObamaCare.

Whether offering insight into the constitutionality of legislation or commentary on policy and critical issues facing America, David Rivkin offers an unparalleled view from his perspective as both a White House insider and outside counsel.

David Rivkin’s speeches draw on more than 20 years of experience in the forefront of constitutional law, and domestic and foreign policy. David is available for speaking engagements in 2012 on a limited basis. Please call (804) 353-5999 or email patsy@arnettandassociates.com.

 

President’s “Recess” Appointments unconstitutional, David Rivkin testifies

On January 4, 2012, President Obama made the following “recess” appointments: Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB and Richard Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, and Terence F. Flynn as members of the NLRB. At the time of the appointments, the Senate was holding a series of “pro forma” sessions. While the U.S. Department of Justice claims that the President has the authority to make these appointments, in essence, to decide for himself when Congress is in session, David Rivkin and other constitutional law experts disagree.

“The Constitution allows the President to make recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess; it does not guarantee him the right to make one or more of such appointments,” says Rivkin in his written testimony.

According to RIvkin, the Office of Legal Counsel “takes what was meant and written as a gap-filler or safety valve — what to do when the Senate is out-of-town and unable to confirm a nominee to a vital position — and converts it into an affirmative grant of power that guarantees the President the right to make some number of appointments without the Senate’s approval.” This will weaken Congress’ power.

Watch and discuss David Rivkin’s testimony before CA Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee of Oversight & Government Reform.

 

David Rivkin testifies on President’s Recess Appointments

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing entitled, “Uncharted Territory: What are the Consequences of President Obama’s Unprecedented ‘Recess’ Appointments?” at 9:30am on Wednesday, February 1st in room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

Appellate Attorney David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler presented his testimony and explained “the Constitution’s Framers assumed — rightly at the time — that Congress would convene for only part of each year, and that there would be long stretches of time during which the Senate would be unavailable to play its critical advice-and-consent role in the appointment of federal officials.”