The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

When is a recess a recess?

Some time ago, President Obama made some recess appointments under the Constitutional provision (Art. II, Sec. 2, clause 3) that:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


And at the time, I thought nothing could really be done about it, that even though it was a misuse of the recess appointment clause, there was no way to challenge it. Well, I've been surprised. Yesterday I read an article entitled “GOP senators sue Obama over sham labor board nominees.” And it seems that Noel Canning, a family-owned business in Washington State that bottles and distributes soft drinks, is challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s determination that it must enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union on the basis that members of the NLRB were illegally appointed in that way. And this lawsuit has been joined by the Republican leadership of the Senate.

I had thought such a suit would founder because nobody might have standing to sue. But perhaps I was wrong. Let us see what the courts say here.

No comments: