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.”

 

 

 

David Rivkin debates how the U.S. treats its terror suspects

Constitutional defender and appellate attorney David Rivkin debates Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights on the tenth anniversary of Guantanamo, how the U.S. treats its terror suspects, the U.S. Justice paradigm, and current legislation. “For the first time Congress has explicitly put its stamp of approval on what here to for has been done either based upon indirect congressional support and authorization to use military force, executive branch practices and judicial decisions.” – David Rivkin on not seeing the legislation as “new.”

 

Rivkin on Ali Musa Daqduq, the Hezbollah terrorist

David Rivkin joins Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio to talk about Ali Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah fighter that was dispatched to Iraq on behalf of the Iranian government and in 2007 he kidnapped, brutality tortured and killed five American soldiers. U.S. forces have since apprehended him and the Obama Administration is ready to hand him over to the Iraqi government who will undoubtedly give him to the Iranians where he will be hailed a hero. At first, Obama wanted to bring him to America and try him in a civilian court and when Congress denied that request, the president wanted to try him in a military court in South Carolina, but for obvious security reasons that was quickly dismissed. Obama will not send him to Guantanamo Bay and therefore is willing to release him instead of upsetting his liberal base. Where is the logic in releasing an enemy combatant instead of sending him to a military detention center? Obama is so against Guantanamo Bay that he is willing to release a man who tortured and killed five American servicemen, what are Obama’s priorities?