President Obama has fulfilled a second Tom Friedman fantasy — the first being that he is, in fact, President Obama. “I have fantasized . . . that, what if we could just be China for a day,” the New York Times star columnist gushed for his ponderous fellow travelers on Meet the Press. “I mean where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions.”
It was May 2010, not long after Obama and a Congress dominated by Democrats had rammed through Obamacare, the most sweeping government usurpation of private industry and individual liberty in American history. Soon they’d be adding Dodd-Frank’s paralyzing intrusion into the financial sector. Yet, despite the shock and awe of hope and change, here was the Progressive Poobah, grousing that “my democracy” was failing “to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness” as a totalitarian Communist dictatorship. After all, unburdened by our remnants of free-market competition, by the gridlock and sausage-making of two-party politics, the Chicoms produce trade and budget surpluses, state-of-the-art airports, and enviro-friendly high-speed rail. All we can manage, “on everything from the economy to environment,” Friedman complained, are “suboptimal solutions” — apparently not to be confused with the optimal Chinese menu of forced abortions, religious repression, secret police, kangaroo courts, and air you could cut with a chopstick.
Advertisement
Friedman is surely smiling today. So, we can assume, are other leftists, such as Peter Orszag, Obama’s former budget-overrun director, and Bev Perdue, the governor of North Carolina. Right after the midterm shellacking that swept Republicans into control of the House — a roadblock that has stymied some, but by no means all, of Obama’s transformational agenda — they said aloud what other Democrats were thinking: America’s problem is too much democracy. This week, the president solved that problem, shoving another page of the suboptimal Constitution through his made-in-China shredder.
In sum, Obama dissolved the separation of powers, the framers’ ingenious bulwark against any government branch’s seizure of supreme power — and thus the Constitution’s bulwark against tyranny. The president claims the power to appoint federal officers without the Senate’s constitutionally mandated advice and consent. He does so by claiming unilateral powers to dictate when the Senate is in session, a power the Constitution assigns to Congress, and to decree that an ongoing session is actually a recess. This sheer ukase, he says, triggers the part of the Constitution we’re keeping because he likes it — viz., the executive power to fill vacancies without any vetting by the people’s representatives.
Mind you, a president is the only government official constitutionally required to swear that he will “preserve, protect and defend” that Constitution. We are talking here not just about Obama’s characteristically breathtaking arrogance. These are profound violations of his oath and of our fundamental law. But rest assured he will get away with them. For that, Republicans can thank themselves and their surrender to statism.
Obama is hot to move forward on two fronts. The first is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is the monstrous Dodd-Frank’s crown jewel. Congress unconstitutionally delegated to it virtually unreviewable power to “dictate credit allocation in the U.S. economy,” as C. Boyden Gray put it. Not just bank lending — the law invests dictatorial power in a single CFPB director over thousands of American businesses. The CFPB is not just part of Obama’s design to splay the government’s tentacles throughout the private economy; it is also key to his reelection narrative: Leviathan, no longer shyly creeping but heroically swashbuckling through predatory capitalists to rescue the noble “99 percent.”
By law, however, the CFPB cannot operate until its director has been confirmed. Before the midterms, Senate Republicans lacked the votes necessary to stop the CFPB from being enacted, but they now have the numbers needed to block confirmations — or, in this instance, to extract concessions in exchange for confirmations. In our constitutional republic, this is what is known as politics. That is not a dirty word. Indeed, it is the very horse-trading that leftists and their media cheerleaders indignantly demand to be afforded even when they don’t have the numbers to force their opposition’s hand.
Question: Are the Republicans actually statists, or are they merely wimps? In their heart of hearts wouldn't most of them like small government, a Congress that exercises its powers in governance, a repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board? Surely if they could do so with nothing but praise from journals like National Review, wouldn't they? After all, they had a vote and everything on the Ryan plan, and only crawled back into their corner when they were surprised to find out Obama, the Democrats and the media savagely attacked them and they'd actually have to fight back to succeed. Isn't the problem that they simply can't take the heat when they are criticized, and can't bring themselves to forcefully argue with Obama, Democrats and reporters? Perhaps this is a difference that makes no difference since if after a day or two of mild, civil, collegial disagreement, all you're going to do is cave, or return to your seat at the back of the bus where you are most comfortable anyway, you are a de facto statist. I suspect, however, in a world where Republicans never had to step outside their comfort zone, they would like to have a limited government, exercise their constitutional authority, and check a President's dictatorial actions. It's just that to do so would require them to try hard, and for more than a day or a week, and they don't want to go that far.
Another problem is that their allies in journals like National Review for the most part enable them in their natural inclination to do nothing. Mr. McCarthy is a notable exception in this matter, but for the most part National Review is content to let the Republicans argue that they can do nothing more than nothing until they control all branches of government. Meanwhile, as we wait for that theoretical promised land, Obama's statist agenda progresses, with approval ratings that aren't all that bad considering everything, and chances for reelection are even at worst. And while conservative pundits scratch their heads and wonder why this is so, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out. In the face of Obama's outrageous actions, all the public sees is a Republican opposition that can't exercise much of any real passion over anything he does, and prefers deference and flattery to criticizing him, and acts like it's more of an embarrassment than anything else to actually have to hold a contrary view.
What good is being in Congress if you can't extort? And how can you extort without power, the more, the better?
Don't be such a mook. If, by now, you don't wonder how all these penniless losers retire millionaries on a congressman's pay, you simply have not been paying much attention. Smaller government means less influence, less dollars, less prestige. When you've spent your whole life kissing butt to get it, you're just not going to give that up.
And what else do you think they are qualified to do? Have you seen any committee hearings pertainng to the internet? Their ignorance is breathtaking! Please tell me how some useless Senator goes back to an actual job after 16 years in never-never land. Doing what, exactly?
It really is that simple.
Andrew, what you describe as the tweaking of bad governance when it will eventually be in the hands of a Republican president is the problem with Romney in the role as Chief Executive. Neither he nor Congress will attack the inherent flaws of bad legislation and expanding bureaucracy.
The left is adept at implementing the Alinsky strategy of picking a target and demonizing it to the point that the compliant media not only goes after the target but also the point of view they represent. People like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, William Bennett and others who represent the strong conservative positions are branded as extremists and so demonized that any politician who follows their lead is pilloried in the media.
It takes strong principles and a commitment to the survival of the Republic and its people rather than a commitment to reelection in order to reverse the progressive trends that have been developing over the past century. Unfortunately, the people who truly believe and have the capacity to lead the country on the basis of these principles have been so marginalized by the media and the relentless attacks by the left that they refuse to subject themselves and their families to it, And we are a poorer nation because of it.
A bunch of ridiculous huffing and puffing by McCarthy. He apparently thinks that the Senate can eliminate a power assigned to the President in the very text of the Constitution by refusing to acknowledge its own recesses.
The sole purpose of the pro forma sessions is not to pass legislation under Article I of the Constitution, but to prevent the President from exercising his explicit textual powers under Article II. They are not legitimate.
I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where Congress is required to state *why* it is in session. But they are clearly in charge of their ability to decide whether they are in session or not. Recess appointments were supposed to be emergency measures, instead they are used as a loophole to do an end-run around proper congressional authority. Congress has a vested interest in preventing this abuse. Congress -- our representatives -- are supposed to confirm Presidential appointments. When one party is "gaming the system" it only makes sense for the other party to counter.
If Obama doesn't like it, then he should pursue legitimate avenues -- go to the courts and the people -- not usurp Congress's power to decide when it's in recess for himself.
You are trying to defend the indefensible.
As a note, the text reads "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
Back when this was written, when Congress recessed, it meant the members all riding off on horses and carriages for destinations that were often many days ride away. When they recessed, it was a very difficult, length and time-consuming process to reconvene. That is no longer the case. It was written to allow the President to keep the government operational during an emergency -- not to allow him to defy Congress and skirt their approval of key administration positions.
If Congress really wants to play hardball, "session" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. It's used three times in the base document without definition. They could simply declare and end-of-session, open a new session and declare Obama's appointments expired. And they'd probably be on less shaky Constitutional ground than Obama.
What this really comes down to is an interpretation of Senate rules, whether explicit or implicit. I very much doubt that the courts will take a case of this nature. It should be adjudicated by the senators, not by the judiciary. If a majority of the Senate believes that Obama has overstepped his bounds, they can easily take steps to block him. Obama has made a bold move in this political chess game; the Senate is now on the clock.
Sorry it is Obama who has acted illegally and sought to undermine the Constitution.
Until he did this, Obama fully supported this tactic to block the President's abuse of recess appointments.
In addition the House had to consent under Article 1, Sec. 5 and the House did not. A technicality but the law is made of technicalities.
This President is a clear and present danger to this Constitutional Republic. He is nothing more than a dictator and needs to be impeached and removed from office.
Sorry it is Obama who has acted illegally and sought to undermine the Constitution.
Until he did this, Obama fully supported this tactic to block the President's abuse of recess appointments.
In addition the House had to consent under Article 1, Sec. 5 and the House did not. A technicality but the law is made of technicalities.
This President is a clear and present danger to this Constitutional Republic. He is nothing more than a dictator and needs to be impeached and removed from office.
Sorry it is Obama who has acted illegally and sought to undermine the Constitution.
Until he did this, Obama fully supported this tactic to block the President's abuse of recess appointments.
In addition the House had to consent under Article 1, Sec. 5 and the House did not. A technicality but the law is made of technicalities.
This President is a clear and present danger to this Constitutional Republic. He is nothing more than a dictator and needs to be impeached and removed from office.
"The key words are vacancies 'that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.' Those words do not describe the situation with Cordray or with Craig Becker who is now out of office.
"What they mean is this: if the vacancy arises in the gap between terms, the President does not have to travel light just because the Senate is not in session. In the founding period, Congress was not in perpetual session to say the least, so this provision meant that if there was no ability to go through the usual process of nomination and confirmation, the President could act on his own. But this vacancy did not “happen,” i.e. arise, during the recess. It carried over from before.
"At this point the correct construction of the provision is that no one can be appointed during the recess because there was an opportunity to work out the issue earlier. The person to whom this most powerfully applies is the nominee who has been rejected, but accurately read it would cover any substitute nominee as well."
Whether or not the sessions are legitimate is beside the point. The problem here is that the president should not be the one to decide whether or not the Senate is "in session."
Until or unless the majority of the American people revert to supporting the original philosophy of the Founders, the only practical solution is massive civil disobedience. Businesses should simply ignore Federal regulations.
