| 翻訳と辞書 |
| NLRB v. Noel Canning ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
NLRB v. Noel Canning
''National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that the President of the United States can only use his authority under the Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution when the United States Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business. The Court held that the clause allows the president to make appointments during both intra-session and inter-session recesses, but only if the recess is of sufficient length, and if the Senate is actually unavailable for deliberation.〔(''National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning'' ), 〕 The case arose out of President Barack Obama's appointments of Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning | LII Supreme Court Bulletin | LII / Legal Information Institute )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Justices to Decide the Scope of Recess-Appointment Authority | Legal Times )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning : SCOTUSblog )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Disarming the White House - NYTimes.com )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law )〕
== Background ==
In ''Federalist No. 67,'' Alexander Hamilton writes that the appointment power is ordinarily confined jointly to the President and the Senate, but, considering it unlikely that the Senate would remain continuously in session, the Constitution allows the President to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. Since the advent of air travel, the United States Senate no longer needs to have long recesses. This has potentially changed the meaning of the Recess Appointment Clause of the Constitution, which has affected the way the Senate and the President interact.
This case deals specifically with Noel Canning, whose business was adversely affected by the ruling of the National Labor Relations Board, and has potential implications on the Executive Branch's power to appoint people without Senate approval. The NLRB had found that Canning refused to execute a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union, allegedly in violation of federal law. Canning appealed the board's ruling to the D.C. Circuit claiming that three of its five members were invalidly appointed, leaving the board without a quorum of lawfully appointed members (the Court had previously held in ''New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB'', 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), that the board cannot act without a quorum). The D.C. Circuit vacated the NLRB orders.〔(D.C. Circuit )〕 In a similar case, the Fourth Circuit held that the NLRB could not enforce its orders because of lack of quorum caused by the ineffectiveness of recess appointments made by President Obama while the Senate was not in recess.〔(Fourth Circuit )〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「NLRB v. Noel Canning」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|