The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.In response, the Obama administration is choosing to ignore the ruling, a clear violation of the law and separation of powers:
“The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.
In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.”This isn't the first time President Obama and his administration have flaunted the rule of law.
In February of 2011, Federal Judge Martin Feldman found the administration in contempt of court after he issued an injunction halting President Obama's moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the administration responded by immediately reissuing the same moratorium the judge had just thrown out.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.
In April 2012, after the president publicly stated that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn a federal law, hearing a related case, a three-judge federal appeals court ordered the Department of Justice to produce a three page legal brief clarifying the president's statements.
In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."
The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."In response the DOJ issued a report, the length of which was well under the three-page requirement set by the court, that basically admitted the president didn't know what he was talking about and the federal government recognizes the court's role with regards to judicial review.
Earlier in 2012, an Atlanta judge issued an order to appear for the president in a case in which he was a defendant. The White House responded, saying the president would not be appearing and will continue with his normal duties, in violation of the court order.
In the past 2 years the Obama administration has failed to comply with at least four separate court orders. In addition, President Obama has issued several executive orders that even he previously stated were beyond the powers granted to him by the constitution.
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution defines the circumstances under which the president can be removed from office. These circumstances include treason, bribery of other high crimes and misdemeanors. High crimes and misdemeanors are defined as "allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order."
If the president is not obviously guilty of at least two of these high crimes and misdemeanors, then who is?