Sources suggest that the president is going to go ahead and appoint Richard Cordray to appoint the new regulatory behemoth called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He will do this as a recess appointment, despite the fact that the Senate isn’t in recess. My colleague John Berlau has the details at Openmarket:
During the 2007-08 pro forma session, as noted by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and reported by Politico, President Bush “made no recess appointments between [Democrats’] initial pro forma sessions in November 2007 and the end of his presidency.”
President Obama arguably had a window yesterday in the few seconds between the first and second session of Congress, but didn’t exercise this opportunity. If he appoints Cordray now, he sets a precedent that Democrats and critics of the “Imperial Presidency” will likely regret the next time there is a Republican president and Democrats control one or both houses of Congress. If any adjournment or break the Senate takes can be defined as “recess,” can the president make appointments when the Senate is in formal session and gavels out for the evening? Our long-held tradition of checks and balances advises strongly against going down this road.
And, in this case, the CFPB itself shatters precedents, as well as specific Constitutional provisions, on checks and balances in regulatory agencies. Once a director is appointed, Congress has no effective oversight of the bureau through the appropriations process, as it does with other agencies.
As John implies, this appointment is doubly offensive to the Constitution, snubbing Congress and usurping it in one stroke. I humbly suggest that it is time for the conservative movement to focus on what the president is doing here.
" I humbly suggest that it is time for the conservative movement to focus on what the president is doing here."
Instead of picking the unelectable Mr. Rogers and his magical sweater vest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe conservative movement needs to focus on getting out of the Republican Party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight, because a party consisting of roughly 30% of the electorate would have so much general election success. After all, in our parliamentary system, a minority party can easily govern, and stuff.
In 2008, conservatives made up 34% of the electorate. John McCain won 78% of the conservative vote. The other 20% of "conservatives" voted for Obama. Of course, these people aren't conservative at all, they just choose to describe themselves as conservatives for God knows what reason. Which means, conservatives actually represent something closer to 30% of the national electorate.
Do you know how many national elections you can win with 30% (presuming you can get all 30% to actually vote for your candidate)? Zero. You will win ZERO national elections. You would see the Dems take super-majorities in both houses of Congress, and take control of probably 38-40 state legislatures and governorships. Other than that, it's a great idea.
Sometimes, the stupidity - it burns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaintaining the status quo will continue us on the current trajectory to oblivion. You'd rather us slowly slouch towards Gomorrah.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI applaud the President's move. Congress created the agency by law-not Obama. He has a duty to execute the law.
If a faction in Congress doesn't want to see the agency function, pass legislation abolishing it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseby law Obama is required to submit a nominee that can pass the Senate ... period ... not submit whomever he would prefer ...
Recess appointments where originally intended to fill a vacancy that OCCURED during a recess as the Constitution clearly states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCordray had enough votes to pass the Senate.
That is why the Republicans did not allow the vote.
External Link
Obama preferred Warren.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the President and his administration were wielding AK-47s, we the American people and the Constitution would not be more 'under attack' than we are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what are the options here?
Go to the Supreme Court and ask that this appointment be set aside?
Refuse to budget any funding for the CFPB? (Though I don't know how you do this if there is no budget)
Impeach Obama on the grounds that he is blatantly violating his oath to uphold the constitution?
I know sarcasm doesn't always come through on the internet, so I should say I'm being perfectly serious: what should we be doing about this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImpeachment if you will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMilitary overthrow if you must.
But getting bad feelings about the nomination fight is so mych more fun!
What I don't understand is why we can't have both. Get all the candidates together to sign a letter denouncing this unconstitutional extension of Presidential Power. Because none of them will denounce it if they become president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou want people to become apoplectic over recess appointments? You're kidding, right? Just testing us?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess you missed the part where the Senate isn't in recess.
Gotta love this:
"That's inexcusable," Obama says in the remarks. "And I refuse to take 'No' for an answer. I've said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them."
---
So, in other words, if Congress isn't using its Constitutionally-exclusive power the way Obama wants them to, Obama's going to use it for them.
You people screamed and hollered and cried and whined about the "arrogance of power" and the "imperial presidency" for eight years. We always knew it was crocodile tears and puffery, but with this President, you've proved it beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, hogwash. The GOP in the Senate is using the filibuster to prevent ANYONE from being appointed to the role, in an attempt to subvert laws which were duly passed by the last Congress. The idea that Obama actually getting someone appointed to the position that was legally created, somehow represents an 'abuse of power' is laughable and childish.
The 'recess appointment' window isn't written into the Constitution. It's a convention that has been used in modern times, but there's nothing illegal about it at all.
It's like a bunch of crying children around here half the time... seriously. The entire GOP needs to grow up a bit and realize that tantrums and stubborn obstinacy is a terrible way to run the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood God, Fish; do you never tire of showing your slobbering ignorance?
From THE CONSTITUTION, Article II:
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
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"
He's claiming to be using the power in the second paragraph. But the Senate IS NOT in recess.
It doesn't say "fill up all vacancies because the mean ol' Senate won't consent." It doesn't say "fill up all vacancies because he won't take 'no' for an answer."
Ignorance, Fish. It's your hallmark around here. I'd think after all the fails and bails you'd try a little harder, but I guess not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He's claiming to be using the power in the second paragraph. But the Senate IS NOT in recess."
Yes, it is. Pro-forma sessions do NOT interrupt a recess. You may believe they do, but you are wrong.
See:
External Link
I know these things because I actually do RESEARCH before posting here. You do not, because you do not. Which one of us is indeed the ignorant one, David?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's own legal team, when it was Bill Clinton's legal team, thought otherwise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGuess what, Fish? An op-ed detailing one man's opinion doesn't establish a fact.
You may THINK you do "research," but what you actually do is look for something which you think confirms what you want, and stop there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs opposed to your NO research, my attempt to find supporting evidence for my position is infinitely superior. I would also point out that you have no apparently legal or Constitutional law background whatsoever, so your opinion - and that's what you've presented - on this issue means nothing to anyone in this thread.
You have no meaningful response to the opinion I linked to, so I will rest comfortably on my argument. You may return to your previously scheduled frothing at the mouth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Fish; I simply don't accept an op-ed as establishment of a Constitutional fact.
As for my background, I'll put my JD from a first-tier law school up against whatever piece of paper you've got, any day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse