Daily Archives: 20 May 2013

Of What Are They Afraid?

Posted on by
Reply

British PM David Cameron, in another step in his push to give the British people a vote on their continued membership in the EU, has

given his Conservative Party’s backing to a draft bill that would commit the UK to holding an EU referendum by the end of 2017[.]

Of course many of his governing coalition partners oppose this bill—they not only want continued membership in the EU, they want the matter closed without the people’s further input.

Opposition cronies also oppose the thought of acknowledging the people’s view—and the primacy of that view—in the matter, fearing the referendum might actually come out in favor of leaving the EU.  One such crony, John Cridland of something called the Confederation of British Industry, insists

For those of us in the business world, it feels like a diversion from what we should be doing in Europe, which is restoring growth, through trade deals, and championing the reforms that we want to see….

Europe is more important than Great Britain?  What “reforms” does Cridland seriously think he’s going to get through the EU?  Why not focus on helping Great Britain first?

The EU, in fact, is doing nothing serious for Great Britain; it does, in the larger picture, endanger British fiscal soundness with the EU’s own continued demand for bailouts of spendthrifts (which only condones that irresponsibility).

Of what are the opponents of the British voice so afraid?  Or is it simply that the people shouldn’t be allowed waste government resources on making a choice that their Betters already have made for them?

Progress

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the DC Circuit had struck down President Barack Obama’s “appointment” of three of his folks to the NLRB, ruling in blunt terms that these appointments were unconstitutional since they had been made while the Senate was in session.

Now the 3rd Appellate Circuit, centering its opinion on the “appointment” of Craig Becker in March 2010, has expanded on that for its area of jurisdiction (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), ruling that rulings made by this unconstitutionally constituted board were without effect since the NLRB, lacking a quorum, had no capacity for issuing its rulings.  The 3rd Circuit’s ruling says in part

We hold that the “the Recess of the Senate,” in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks.  As a consequence, we conclude that the National Labor Relations Board panel below lacked the requisite number of members [three] to exercise the Board’s authority.

The narrow outcome of the ruling is this:

…a disputed union election that occurred at a New Jersey nursing home.  The NLRB denied the nursing home’s motion that the board illegitimately forced the company to recognize unionized managers.  The Appeals Court ruled that the board did not have the authority to dismiss the motion because of the recess appointments.

The broader outcome of the ruling is to invalidate over 900 rulings issued by the NLRB while it had no quorum with which to do so, including more than 200 since the board’s current makeup was ruled unconstitutional by the DC Circuit, which has national jurisdiction in such matters.

This can have only salutary effects for our country.