PDA

View Full Version : NLRB Says It Plans To Ignore Court Ruling Declaring Obama’s Recess Appointments “Unconsti




sailingaway
01-25-2013, 07:13 PM
NLRB Says It Plans To Ignore Court Ruling Declaring Obama’s Recess Appointments “Unconstitutional”…

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nlrb-we-will-continue-to-act-despite-the-appeals-court-decision/article/2519736?custom_click=rss#.UQL5zpWuUlE


Pearce, in short, is indicating that the NLRB’s strategy is to act as if the court’s ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional somehow only applies only to the particular case that went before the Appeals Court and hope that the White House can get the Supreme Court to quickly review the case.

It’s a pretty brazen strategy, but consistent with a broader administration strategy to simply ignore the court’s ruling. http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-courts-recess-appointment-ruling-has-no-impact-on-nlrb-operations/article/2519710

more: http://washingtonexaminer.com/nlrb-we-will-continue-to-act-despite-the-appeals-court-decision/article/2519736?custom_click=rss#.UQL5zpWuUlE

and look at that link at the end of the quote for the White House position.

itshappening
01-25-2013, 07:23 PM
Yes because they know the Supreme Court will overturn it and declare Obama above the law like they did with healthcare probably on a 5-4 decision

brushfire
01-25-2013, 07:46 PM
So can I ignore court rulings now? I never believed the NFA was a constitutional act.

1000-points-of-fright
01-25-2013, 07:51 PM
So the NLRB is going with nullification? Wow, our ideas really are going mainstream!

TywinLannister
01-25-2013, 08:30 PM
the court ruling is not binding outside of its Federal court district. it makes sense for them to continue operating as usual

Pericles
01-25-2013, 10:13 PM
So can I ignore court rulings now? I never believed the NFA was a constitutional act.

Check out http://constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm Of note is the the .gov did not appeal the decision -

"Thus, § 922(o), as applied to machineguns made after May 19, 1986, left the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act without any constitutional basis.................

As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration."

TywinLannister
01-25-2013, 10:44 PM
Check out http://constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm Of note is the the .gov did not appeal the decision -

"Thus, § 922(o), as applied to machineguns made after May 19, 1986, left the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act without any constitutional basis.................

As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration."

The 7th Circuit rejected this while ruling on another case: U.S. v. Ross 9 F.3d 1182 C.A.7 (Ill.),1993.


The Fourth Circuit rejected the rationale of Rock Island Armory and Dalton in United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 914, 113 S.Ct. 2351, 124 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993). In Jones, the defendant had modified two shotguns to function as machineguns and had sold them to a federal undercover officer in violation of the National Firearms Act (the “old Act”). Judge Niemeyer rejected Jones' arguments that § 922( o) made compliance with § 5861 impossible and thus effectively repealed the earlier registration requirements.

“In the absence of some affirmative showing of an intention to repeal, the only permissible justification for repeal by implication is when the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.” ... [T]he two statutes are not irreconcilable because, despite Jones' assertions to the contrary, Jones can comply with both acts. While he may not be able to register newly-made machine guns in which he deals, neither act requires him to deal in such guns. Simply put, Jones can comply with both acts by refusing to deal in newly-made machine guns.... What Jones is really complaining about is that the amendment to the Gun Control Act effectively rendered possession of certain guns automatic violations of both the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Yet there is nothing either inconsistent or unconstitutionally unfair about Congress' decision to do so. And, faced with two equally applicable penal statutes, there is nothing wrong with the government's decision to prosecute under one and not the other, so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants.

Jones, 976 F.2d at 183 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Mr. Ross asserts that Jones is distinguishable because, although it did reject arguments that § 5861(c), (e), and (j) were rendered unconstitutional by the 1986 Act, technically it did not address § 5861(d) at all. We disagree. Section 5861(c) makes it illegal to possess a firearm manufactured in violation of the chapter; section 5861(d) makes it illegal to possess an unregistered firearm; section 5861(e) makes it illegal to transfer a firearm in violation of the chapter; and section 5861(j) makes it illegal to transport in interstate commerce any unregistered firearm. In short, all four sections are attempting to accomplish the same task-to ensure that the government may carefully track and regulate machineguns. We find the analysis applied in Jones to be well-reasoned and to be equally as applicable to § 5861(d).FN12

Pericles
01-25-2013, 10:52 PM
The 7th Circuit rejected this while ruling on another case: U.S. v. Ross 9 F.3d 1182 C.A.7 (Ill.),1993.

But still the law in the 10th, and not in the 5th - but neither has taken on the issue post Heller. The 5th especially was on the 2A as a collective right as a basis for its finding.

TywinLannister
01-25-2013, 11:06 PM
But still the law in the 10th, and not in the 5th - but neither has taken on the issue post Heller. The 5th especially was on the 2A as a collective right as a basis for its finding.

The Rock Island case was a District Court ruling in Ill (7th District)