The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States. The organization’s fundamental policies are very conservative and would not be considered by most to be politically correct.  The BSA has policies that not only prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program, but also prohibit “avowed” homosexual people from leadership roles in its Scouting program, because they claim it directly violates their fundamental principles and tenets.  BSA has argued that as a private organization it has the right to follow these tenets.  This has led to numerous court challenges.

The organization’s legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The legal challenge to the BSA was as to whether or not an organization could set membership standards that outwardly discriminate against a class of people that courts have protected in other situations. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that, as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. The BSA’s policies have not been found to constitute illegal discrimination and ultimately the court found that, as a private organization in the United States, the BSA has the right to freedom of association.

Recently in Bridgeport, Ohio, the policy regarding sexual orientation has been the center of a controversy involving a den mother, who was the mother of one of the scouts and also a lesbian. Jennifer Tyrrell was removed from her position as den mother of Ohio Pack 109 Tiger Scouts when the BSA was informed that she was a lesbian. The parents of the other boys in the troop have rallied to Tyrrell’s defense, as most of them were aware of her sexual orientation and were comfortable with her position as the adult supervisor of their children. Last week many of the parents held a protest rally outside of the church where the scout troop holds its weekly meetings, demanding that she be reinstated.

The situation has reignited the issue about the BSA anti-gay policy. In addition to the parents of Ohio Pack 109, gay rights groups have taken up the cause, starting an online petition urging the Boy Scouts of America to change their policy.

Forum Question of the Week:

Should the Boy Scouts of America be required to change their policy on sexual orientation in order to allow parents like Jennifer Tyrrell the opportunity to participate with their children in scouting on an equal basis with the parents of other children?

The Dayton City Commission recently voted to formally object to the renewal of six liquor permits of bars and carry-outs located in Dayton. Taking advantage of the yearly renewal process, the city government will attempt to have the liquor license removed from these establishments. For each of the six, the Dayton Police has given a negative report to the city about the activities associated with these locations. The city takes the action to protect Dayton residents from possibly coming to harm at these bars and to protect the right of those living near the bars to the quiet enjoyment of their neighborhoods.

The objection, if successful, will mean these four bars and two carry-outs will in all likelihood be forced to close their doors. This will affect not only the owner and the capital that has been invested in the establishment, but the employees as well, who face the loss of their jobs in this very uncertain job market. For the owners, the action by the city has the affect of taking away their businesses.

There is due process available for an owner who feels the action taken by the city is unwarranted, as the formal objection by the city is just a first step. If a hearing is requested, a hearing officer from the Department of Liquor Control conducts a hearing where evidence from all parties is presented. A decision is mailed to the parties and that decision can be appealed to the three-person Commission on Liquor Control. The Commissions decision can be appealed to the Franklin County Common Pleas Court which hears all appeals for the entire state on appeal from a Commission decision.

Despite the fact that an owner has a lot at stake financially, the issuance of liquor permits is considered a privilege, and not a right in the State of Ohio. There are numerous court cases which decide the issue. The court has pointed out that although legal by Ohio law, the sale of liquor has in it such dangers that it is entirely subject to the police power of the state. With that power, comes the power to revoke a license previously granted.  “A license or a right to such a license, to engage in the liquor business is not an inherent right of a citizen, a contract or a property right. State, ex rel. Zugravu, v. O’Brien, 130 Ohio St., 23, 196 N. E., 664.  It is well settled in under Ohio law that there is no right to a liquor permit.

In the instance of Hammerjax’s, the police presented a report that showed they were called to the establishment 62 times in the period from January 2011 to January 2012. There were 17 crime reports taken.  There were a number of assaults, some aggravated assaults, disorderly conduct and other misdemeanors reported. The report doesn’t include a very recent shooting at Hammerjax’s where a bartender was shot in the back when re-entering the bar at closing time. There is a history of violent behavior coming from Hammerjax’s which the owners have been unable to curtail. On occasion, the disturbances from Hammerjax’s have grown so large that the police from the Central District, which is essentially downtown, have needed to call on squads from other police districts.  Clearly, Hammerjax’s has been a problem child for the police.

In addition the Dayton Police Department, there were a number of groups objecting to the renewal of the Hammerjax’s liquor permit. These included the Sinclair College Police Department, the Downtown Priority Board, the Downtown Dayton Partnership and a number of residents who live in downtown including residents from nearby St Clair Lofts.

A letter from the Chairman of the Greater Downtown Dayton Plan to the Dayton Commission outlined the great progress that downtown Dayton had made in recent years towards making the central city the premiere destination for arts and entertainment. The letter went on to say that reports in the media about troubled establishments like Hammerjax’s made non-Daytonians less likely to visit downtown Dayton out of fear for their safety, thus undermining the progress downtown Dayton was enjoying.

This will not be the first time a popular nightspot in Dayton got a red card. In the Oregon District there has long been a contentious relationship between the bars of 5th Street and the good citizens residing in renovated homes in the District. In 1982 there was even a vote to make the entire precinct dry. That caused some sleepless nights for the business owners on 5th Street. The vote was unsuccessful and the Oregon Business District continues to sell alcohol today.

In the ‘80s there was not a more popular bar in Dayton than Jonathon’s in the Oregon District. On Saturday nights, there was an hour long wait to get in. However, by the early ‘90s the residents of the Oregon District had enough of the rowdy behavior coming from the bar.  Tired of noisy patrons from the bar wandering drunk through the residential section of the Oregon District at all hours, taking up their parking spots and urinating on their rose bushes, the residents of the district filed a ballot initiate to vote 11 Brown Street (Jonathon’s address) “dry”. On a close vote of 112 to 105, Dayton precinct 1-B voted to revoke Jonathon’s liquor permit. The owners took a huge economic loss. But ten years later, out of the ashes of the old Jonathon’s, a new favorite Dayton spot has arisen … Thai 9.

The lesson here is for bar owners to keep a tight reign on their business and their patrons. A lax attitude towards misbehaving customers will soon have you learning the expensive lesson that your liquor license is a privilege and not a right.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

By David H. Landon

Last week Americans were focused on the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court as the challenge to Obamacare reached the highest court in the land. The court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare, which for the first time, under the terms of the “individual mandate,” requires Americans to enter commerce, the health care market, in order to then regulate them. The Administration’s chief argument was that the health care market is unique and that everyone will have to participate in it at some point, thereby justifying the government requiring people to buy insurance for it now.  But there’s a difference between regulating an existing commerce and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce in which they were not participating, so that Congress can better regulate it.  If the court agrees with the Obama administration, it will fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the government.

During the hearing the justices peppered the attorneys arguing the case with questions, and from the scope and tone of those questions, Court observers are attempting to predict the outcome of the Court’s decision. That decision will be announced in late June. Many supporters of Obamacare were concerned with the performance of Solicitor General Verrilli, who had trouble answering the questions of the conservative members of the Court when pressed to explain where the limits to regulation under the Commerce Clause were.

Verrilli tried to explain that health care was a unique market that deserved regulation because everyone would eventually need to participate within the market. But he failed to answer the troubling question which has those who love freedom most concerned: If Congress was able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then are there any real limits to its power? Sadly the answer is that there is no limit once this threshold is crossed. Once the government can make us purchase a service, or an item … there is no turning back. Freedom is lost and Big Government has the reins.

The questioning by the four liberal justices -Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan- quickly left little doubt that they believed requiring individuals to buy health insurance was within the regulatory powers of the Commerce Clause, and that the “individual mandate” was constitutional. The questioning by three of the four conservative members of the Court indicated a real skepticism that the “individual mandate” could be justified under even the most expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power.

The decision may be decided by where Justice Anthony Kennedy comes down on the issue. Justice Kennedy, a 75 year old Reagan appointee, has been the swing vote a number of times during his career on the Court. Kennedy pointed out, in more than one instance during oral arguments, that to find this action by Congress constitutional would “fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.”  I am hopeful that his questioning signals that his vote will be to find the individual mandate unconstitutional. That would probably lead to a 5-4 vote. Without the mandate, the entire legislation falls under the weight of its inability to be funded. And that’s a good thing. Congress can start over and provide reform that doesn’t nationalize healthcare.

The legal arguments for and against the legislation have temporarily obscured the obscene manner in which the legislation was passed. Against overwhelming public sentiment and without allowing Republican input, the Democratic Congress rammed Obamacare through using every parliamentary trick in the book. To add insult to injury, most members of Congress only saw the 2700 page legislation a few hours before it was voted upon. No member of Congress …. and by no member, I literally mean no member … had an opportunity to read the legislation prior to voting on it.

When it passed, President Obama promised that it would do three things: 1) provide health-insurance coverage for all Americans, 2) reduce insurance costs for individuals, businesses, and government and 3) increase the quality of health care and the value received for each dollar of health-care spending. As we pass the two year anniversary of its signing, we learn from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that it will accomplish none of these promises.

Obamacare is a take over by the federal government of 17% of the U.S. economy. Bureaucrats, regulations and the efficiency of the U.S. Post Office all rolled into one national healthcare system.  Despite this massive interference, according to a report from the CBO released in March, Obamacare will still leave 27 million Americans uninsured by 2022. Of the 23 million Americans who will gain coverage under Obamacare, 17 million will not be covered by private insurance, but will simply be dumped into the Medicaid system, where problems of access and quality abound. An earlier CBO report estimated that the law would now cost nearly twice as much as originally forecast — $1.76 trillion as opposed to $938 billion — between now and 2022. The law will become a drag on the federal budget as it has already slowed down the recovery because of the uncertainty that it creates for business.

There are few principles of good government as fundamental and irreplaceable to the preservation and protection of republican form of government as that of federalism. Obamacare effectively ends federalism. If Obamacare is found constitutional, the 50 states are no longer 50 self-governing sovereign entities.  Instead, they become a collection of confederate subordinates to the federal government whose sole purpose is to act as transfer stations for taxpayer funds to and from the federal government.  Freedom is lost. Individual liberty becomes a distant dream.

Prediction:  Obamacare will be found unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

By David H. Landon

Rush Limbaugh apologized. So get over it!  El Rushbo realized that he missed the mark with his characterization of Georgetown law student and past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), Sandra Fluke, when he called her a “slut” during his radio talk show. It came across as a personal attack by Limbaugh against the 30 year-old Fluke, who testified 10 days ago before a contrived Congressional hearing called by Nancy Pelosi. Limbaugh has been the master for the past 20 years of addressing the absurd policies of the left with political satire. This time he went over the line. Being the professional entertainer that he is, when he realized his mistake he apologized. The apology was not for either pointing out the hypocrisy or challenging the veracity of Fluke’s position. Rather, it was for using a vile word that has no place in public discourse, even when used as part of a satirical review.

So Limbaugh has now apologized for his remarks … twice.  It really doesn’t matter. He could apologize 100 times with the ghost of Mother Teresa hovering over him as a character witness to his sincerity, and the left would not be satisfied.  Limbaugh haters could never possibly be satisfied.  This is too good of an opportunity for them to blast Rush Limbaugh, a man who’s beaten them like a drum for the past twenty years.

Some of Limbaugh’s advertisers, in response to the controversy and pressure from the left, have withdrawn their sponsorship of the radio show. Naturally, Congressional Democrats are delighted over the prospect that their long time nemesis is losing advertisers. Some Democrats are encouraging that the radio talk show host be sued.

Despite the current fury, there is no indication that Rush has lost any of his listeners. The show presently has 15 -20 million listeners.  As long as the show maintains that listener base, it doesn’t matter if some advertisers leave Limbaugh for political reasons. Others will want to take their place. The first rule of advertizing is to place your ad where it will be heard. At the present time Rush has the most listened to radio talk show on the planet. In fact, three of the advertisers who left are now asking to return.

The whole incident with Limbaugh calling Ms. Fluke a “slut” was regrettable and has unfortunately obscured what Fluke’s testimony was staged to accomplish. The entire Fluke testimony was contrived by the Congressional Democrats after the President took a beating the week before over his decision to order Catholic institutions to pay for reproductive health services against church doctrine and in violation of the First Amendment.

In an effort to shift the debate topic off of the obvious First Amendment violation, Nancy Pelosi staged a “committee” hearing in front of an entirely partisan House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and trotted out Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke as the spokeswoman on behalf of the poor victims of this outrage. According to Fluke, there are students at Georgetown who have serious medical problems that birth control pills would address, and who lack the $1000 per year that contraceptives would cost.  Fluke testified that as many as 40% of female law students struggled to meet the cost of reproductive health and many had to forego taking the pill.

There are several problems with Fluke’s revelations to the committee.  First, part of her testimony was simply not true. According to Laura Hardman Crosby, the Director of the University Student Health Insurance Office, if a student had a medical reason for needing a birth control prescription, such as for treating endometriosis, those costs would be covered under the university plan.  Fluke’s sad story about the women unable to get that coverage was simply untrue. Secondly, for women who need the pill solely for the prevention of pregnancy, the costs are no where near the $1000 annually suggested by Fluke. A quick investigation revealed a Target store only 3 miles from the law school that currently sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives. That would make the total cost for birth control pills for all three years of law school just $324 — hardly the $3000 suggested by Fluke.

No … Fluke should never have been called the vile name suggested by Limbaugh. But instead, she could be called a liar, a Democratic operative with an agenda and an agent provocateur.

Of course no one on the left has ever used such crude language as Rush to describe a conservative woman. Well, maybe there was the one comment by so-called comedian Louis CK: when describing Sarah Palin holding her special needs child Trig, he said “…when she was on stage at the f—ing convention that just came out of her disgusting f—ing c—… her f—ing retard-making c—…”  Then there’s this twitter gem from Louis, “kudos to your dirty hole, you f—ing jackoff c-nt-face jazzy wondergirl. @louisck.  I want to rub my father’s c-ck all over Sarah Palin’s fat t-ts. @louisck.” This was just 11 months ago. I don’t remember any moral outrage from the left over this asshat’s disgusting mouth.

Then there’s misogynist Bill Maher who recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. That comment by Maher followed earlier comments about Sarah Palin. He described Palin as a “c–t” and a “dumb tw-t.” If you are waiting for outrage by the media over these comments you’ll be waiting a long time.  You see, it’s impossible to be misogynistic towards a conservative woman. Evidently, according to “liberal intelligentsia,” conservative women deserve whatever is said about them.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

By David H. Landon

Last month the President managed to find a way to anger construction workers, many of whom were union members, with the brilliant decision to block the Keystone XL Pipeline. Last week in an effort to alienate yet another voting block, the Obama administration ruled that, under Obamacare, employers with religious objections to providing contraceptive and abortifacient coverage must do so anyway.

The Catholic Church reacted angrily to the decision. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, numerous members of Congress, university presidents and hospital administrators all loudly criticized the decision. In the wake of the reaction, the President immediately started looking for a way to minimize the damage.

Last Friday,the Obama administration attempted to walk back the decision announced earlier by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, which eliminated a federal exemption allowing religion-affiliated institutions to opt out of required coverage of contraceptive services in their health insurance plans.  The administration offered to tweak the regulation in the hopes that it would head off a full-blown Catholic revolt that would seriously hurt his re-election chances.

Under the latest Obama revision, women will still be guaranteed coverage for contraceptive services without any out-of-pocket cost. However, they will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as Catholic schools, charities, universities and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

The obvious question: Who is paying for the coverage?  If the women aren’t paying for their own birth control, where does the money come from to cover the costs?  The average monthly cost for birth control ranges from $25 to$50. Who’s going to pay for that additional coverage? It will certainly not be paid by the insurance companies. They’ll simply pass the costs back to the religious employer in the form of higher premiums on everything else.  So we’re right back where we started. The Catholic institutions are still paying for the coverage, but we are calling it something else.

Here’s a fact of life. The Roman Catholic Church bans artificial methods of contraception. If you are working for a Catholic institution, you do so with the understanding that they are a religious organization and will have employment rules consistent with the teachings of their church. They don’t ask for you to agree with this ban of contraceptive methods if you’re not Catholic.  They do however expect the federal government to respect this basic rule of the Catholic Church and pass no law which would cause a Catholic to have to choose between violating this basic belief of the church or violating the law.

However the administration tries to repackage the plan, they are still violating religious freedom by, in effect, forcing these Catholic institutions to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs. This is not the Obama administration’s first attempt to interfere with religious freedom. In the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC which was decided last month by the Court, the administration showed its penchant for violating the First Amendment.

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to eliminate the “ministerial exception” to employment laws. From the beginning of the American republic, churches have enjoyed an absolute right under the First Amendment to hire and fire their religious ministers. In Hosanna-Tabor, the Obama administration argued that there is a governmental role in the selection and retention of priests, ministers, rabbis and other religious leaders. In a blunt rebuke to the administration’s position, the Supreme Court justices announced last month in a 9-0 opinion, a decision which resoundingly reaffirmed the ministerial exception. I bring this up to demonstrate that there is general disregard for the First Amendment by the President. The current assault by Obama against the teachings of the Catholic Church is consistent with what is becoming a pattern by this administration.

Here’s why it’s not good politics for Obama to alienate the Catholic base. The Catholic Church in the United States has more than 77 million members. It is the largest single religious denomination in the United States, comprising about 22 percent of the population and a slightly higher percentage of registered voters.  One voter in four is a Catholic. In 2008, Obama won the Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent based on exit polls. For years considered an automatic voting block for Democratic candidates, Catholic voters should now be characterized as a swing voting block. Since 1972, Republican presidential candidates have carried the Catholic vote four times including Nixon in 1972, Reagan twice in 1980 and 1984 and George W. Bush in 2004. Catholic votes cannot be taken for granted by either party.

In addition to their influence in presidential politics, Catholics hold numerous offices in federal, state and local government.  Currently there are 25 Catholics in the United States Senate, including 16 Democrats and 9 Republicans. In the United States House of Representatives, 134 out of 435 members are Catholics, including the current House Speaker John Boehner.

The principle of protecting religious freedom goes back to England in the year 1215, where the first clause of Magna Carta states that “the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.” To the extent Catholic voters, even those who use contraceptives, believe that this regulation is a question of religious liberty, it has great potential to influence a pull away from Democrats and toward Republicans. I can’t wait to see the next political brainchild of this administration.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

By David H. Landon

Two weeks ago in a symbolic act to appease environmental groups, Barack Obama placed his presidential re-election above the economic health of the country. There is no other way to make sense of the President’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Not only will the decision have zero effect on protecting the environment, but it damages future U.S. energy needs and is costing the U.S. jobs.

The U.S. currently uses 20 – 21 million barrels of oil per day. In 2010, to meet that daily need, the U.S. imported approximately 11.8 million barrels of oil per day which accounted for 49% of petroleum consumed in the United States. The top two sources of U.S. imported oil are Mexico and Canada. These two countries make up approximately 35% of the imported oil to this country and our friend Canada, now with the development of the Athabasca oil sands region, seems poised to add to their percentage of our imports. As much as we may want to switch to alternative energy sources, the fact is that U.S business and industry will continue to meet its current energy needs with petroleum for the foreseeable future.

Under 54,000 square miles of the sparsely populated boreal forest and peat bogs of Alberta, Canada, are the Athabasca oil sands. Those oil fields contain an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of heavy crude oil. This represents the second largest oil reserve in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia.  With modern oil production technology, at least 10% of these deposits, or about 170 billion barrels were considered to be economically recoverable at 2006 prices.  The fact of the matter is that Canada will sell this resource to some willing buyer.

The Obama administration has been trying to find a reason to table the Keystone XL Pipeline project almost from the day they took office. The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone. State appeared ready to approve the project by the end of 2011. Then Obama, citing opposition to the pipeline’s route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013, after the next presidential election. The Nebraska legislature however, reached an agreement with TransCanada and was working on an alternative route through Nebraska that avoided the Sandhills, a large wetland ecosystem. Everyone was now onboard with the project except Barack Obama.

These underground pipelines aren’t anything new here in the U.S. At present time there are over 200,000 miles of petroleum pipelines crisscrossing the country. Add to that an additional 200,000 miles of natural gas pipelines and you begin to understand the widespread use of this method of delivering America’s energy needs. The technology used in these pipelines has continued to improve and they have a laudable safety record. It’s not like TransCanada, the company that was constructing the pipeline, was introducing some new concept. Underground pipelines have been serving as the vascular system of American industry for the past sixty years. It is both safe and efficient.

There are a number of ways Obama’s decision has hurt the United States. For starters it rejects a cooperative effort with our number one trading partner, Canada. This pipeline would have delivered Canadian oil to Oklahoma and Texas refineries. The U.S. would have benefited from the estimated 20,000 construction jobs needed to complete the project.  Our Gulf coast refineries would have been paid to refine the crude into petroleum which would have created additional jobs. The decision leaves the U.S. more dependent upon importing foreign oil from the Middle East; a foreign policy position to which there is universal opposition for obvious reasons.  At a time when the U.S. economy could use a shot in the arm, those 20,000 union jobs in the pipe-laying industry will now not be filled.

The big winners as a result of the Obama rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline might be the Chinese. If U.S. policy remains unchanged there is a strong possibility that a pipeline will be constructed from Alberta west to the Pacific in order to reach Asian markets. Canada’s largest pipeline owner has applied to build a 730-mile pipeline, called Northern Gateway, which would end at the Pacific port of Kitimat. The port at Kitimat would enable tankers to take up to 525,000 barrels of Alberta crude per day to China, Japan and South Korea. Our Canadian friends are sitting on a fortune and an irrational American energy policy will not deter them from getting their product to market. Unfortunately for the U.S., that market could end up in Asia.

Not everyone is lamenting the Obama decision. Obama loyalist, Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada’s Keystone XL permit. With no pipeline to move the product, the crude can be loaded onto tanker cars shipped by rail from Alberta to the Texas refineries. It will create a carbon footprint that would make a grown environmentalist cry. “But at least we blocked the pipeline,” so goes the battle cry. Obama loyalists seem to always make money with the Obama energy policy. George Soros is cashing in on Brazilian off-shore drilling thanks to the Obama administration’s financial guarantees for the Brazilian program. But of course, there will be no deep off-shore drilling here in U.S. waters!

How about an energy policy that benefits Americans?  That would be a pleasant change. This debate over the proposed pipeline has never been a debate of oil versus alternative energy sources. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from our friends in Canada or from OPEC, Venezuela or Nigeria.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

By David H. Landon

On January 4th President Obama violated the “separation of powers” clause of the U.S. Constitution with his attempt to name Richard Cordray director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) and three others to the National Labor Relations Board. The Republicans in the Senate had blocked Cordray’s appointment since the President announced his selection of Cordray last summer. The appointment came at a time that the Senate was still in “pro forma” session, which should have served as a legal block to the President making a “recess” appointment. Despite that fact, Obama has attempted to circumvent the legislative process and appointed Cordray to the post.

Normally, an appointment such as Cordray’s would require the consent of the Senate. But it’s not so much that the Republicans oppose Richard Cordray. The former Ohio Attorney General seems to be a pleasant enough fellow, with even Ohio Republican Senate Rob Portman speaking highly of him.  The problem is with the CPFB, which is part of the Dodd-Frank reform bill. This newly hatched watchdog agency has the potential to become a regulatory nightmare. And as it is currently funded, the Congress would lose control of the purse strings over the agency. Republicans fear that a runaway agency loose within the financial infrastructure of the nation could create enormous harm, much like the damage already brought upon us by the likes of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The CPFB lacks both transparency and accountability, and Republicans have asked the administration to work with them in defining the role and the limits of CPFB before consenting to Cordray’s appointment.

The “recess appointment” was originally conceived by the Framers for a time when communicating with and summoning senators back to the Capitol might take weeks. Constitutional scholars argue that recess appointments are still valid today, but only if the Senate is in recess. Not only was the Senate not in recess when these purported appointments were made, it constitutionally could not have been in recess.

So what’s at play here? Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither the House or Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. In the current situation the House of Representatives, controlled by Boehner and the Republicans, did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days during the final weeks of December and into the New Year. The Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days, and has been doing so. Under prior practice, these “pro forma” sessions would prohibit the use by a president of the recess appointment.

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) kept the chamber in pro forma sessions at the end of the George W. Bush administration, he declared that was sufficient to prevent Bush’s use of the recess appointment power. Reid was right, whether or not his tactics were justified. My Democrat friends thought at the time that Reid’s parliamentary maneuver was clever. For a two-week break around Thanksgiving 2007, Reid ordered up the pro forma sessions, calling on Sen.  James Webb (D-Va.), who lived in nearby Virginia, to oversee those sessions.

Now we see the shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans are holding the pro forma sessions as a way to prevent a Presidential appointment. Lo and behold: Reid is calling the current pro forma session somehow illegitimate and claiming that Congress is in fact in a recess.

About ten days before his announcement of Cordray, and during the period that Obama now claims was a recess, the President asked the pro forma performing legislature to pass an extension of the payroll tax cut. The Congress obliged and on December 23rd, President Obama signed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut.  He said that Congress passed the bill “in the nick of time”.  The compromise extension really did come through at the last minute, but by the use of the pro forma legislative model, the government was able to pass important legislation.  If the legislature was truly in recess, as the Obama administration claims as justification for the Cordray appointment, the extension of the payroll tax cut could not have occurred.

The President is clearly trying to have it both ways: signing a bill that passed in a pro forma session, and then claiming that the pro forma session was really a recess to justify the Cordray appointment.

It really is inconsequential that most members of Congress are out of town and allow business to be conducted by their agents under unanimous consent procedures. Ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred and could not have occurred without the consent of the House.

President Obama’s recess appointment is in fact a flagrant violation of the Constitution. The president is not empowered by the Constitution to decree when the Congress is or is not in recess.  Our system of government is a delicate balance of the three branches of government.  The President has usurped the “Advice and Consent” power of the Senate and these unconstitutional appointments must be rescinded.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

John and Meghan

In the last few weeks there has been a story circulating around the internet involving two remarkable young people who happened to be stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB. The story involves 2^nd Lt. John Avrett and his fiancée Meghan. These two first met in 2010 in a coffee shop in Colorado Springs, Colo. where John was in his last year at the Air Force Academy and Meghan was training at the U.S. Olympic Training Center as part of the U.S. National Synchronized Swim Team. It was love at first sight. Shortly after they met, Meghan began having problems with her knee, affecting her ability to train.

Last October, it was discovered that she had a rare form of cancer and a golf ball sized tumor had eviscerated from the bone into the soft tissue under her knee cap. Her cancer needed aggressive treatment. Meghan moved to Ohio to be near John and to have her treatment performed at Ohio State University Hospital. The next nine months were full of appointments, week-long hospital stays, surgery and chemotherapy. Meghan finished her last chemo treatment on July 14. John has been at her side for every step of the way during her battle and this August, John proposed to Meghan here in Dayton.

Unfortunately, after dealing with the high costs associated with Meghan’s treatments, the couple is left with limited funds to plan their dream wedding. There is a way for those of us here in the Miami Valley who have been moved by this heart-warming story to help this young couple. John and Meghan are entered in a contest which will award an all expenses paid, ultimate Outer Banks wedding experience for a deserving military couple. You can vote for John and Meghan by going online to www.salutetolove.com, reading their story and then voting for them. They are currently in second place. Let’s rally the Miami Valley for this deserving couple. Please take a minute to help John and Meghan win their dream wedding.

Remember: Go to salutetolove.com and vote!