Obama sets up clash with Congress over recess banking pick

[IbelieveinJesus]

I hope the Reps take this to court, and some Dems come out and condemn this. Certainly they must realize what they are sowing here, if this is allowed to stand.

Obama sets up clash with Congress over recess banking pick

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-appointment/

Congressional officials said President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — a move that breaks with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his own time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the three-day argument to the Supreme Court.

-Ted

[Musician in His house]

According to this Fox article, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may sue the administration over this. I hope they are able to do so, and that they win. He really needs to be reined in somehow (well, what he REALLY needs is to be impeached and divested of office), and I hope the proper people in power will finally see this and act. I wonder sometimes what action of his it will take for even the Democrats to put the brakes on him.

From the article:

"To say we are disappointed in the move by the president today would be a gross understatement," Chamber President Tom Donohue said in statement. "This controversial appointment is unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and puts the authority of the director and the validity of the bureau’s work in legal jeopardy. What's more, it ignores repeated calls to reform the bureau by restoring basic checks and balances."



Others are also questioning the validity of the president's move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who could become the majority leader in 2012, released an ominous statement Wednesday, saying the appointment "lands this nominee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress' role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch."



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...l-appointment/

[Donuts]

And if the Chamber of Commerce sued they would probably lose. Federal Courts in a previous case have ruled that there was no set time requirement for a recess appointment. Republicans are trying to nullify a duly passed law (whether one thinks the law is prudent or not) by blocking the appointment of the head of the agency charged with administering that law. Congress' constitutional role is that of "advise and consent" and that does not imply that they can prevent the proper functioning of the Executive Branch.

Taken to its logical extreme A political party could block EVERY appointment to EVERY agency and prevent the Executive from administering the laws of the US. Not only is that not within the spirit of advise and consent but it also arguably violates the tenet of Separation of Powers. Imagine if Democrats blocked the head of Homeland Security back in 2002, Bush I believe would have been appropriate to make a recess appointment. Likewise, in this specific case a recess appointment was probably warranted and legal

The proper way to deal with this Consumer Protection Agency is to get a Republican president into office and Republican majorities and change the law.

[As_Caleb_Says!]

And if the Chamber of Commerce sued they would probably lose. Federal Courts in a previous case have ruled that there was no set time requirement for a recess appointment. Republicans are trying to nullify a duly passed law (whether one thinks the law is prudent or not) by blocking the appointment of the head of the agency charged with administering that law. Congress' constitutional role is that of "advise and consent" and that does not imply that they can prevent the proper functioning of the Executive Branch.

Taken to its logical extreme A political party could block EVERY appointment to EVERY agency and prevent the Executive from administering the laws of the US. Not only is that not within the spirit of advise and consent but it also arguably violates the tenet of Separation of Powers. Imagine if Democrats blocked the head of Homeland Security back in 2002, Bush I believe would have been appropriate to make a recess appointment. Likewise, in this specific case a recess appointment was probably warranted and legal

The proper way to deal with this Consumer Protection Agency is to get a Republican president into office and Republican majorities and change the law.

I agree 100%.

[IbelieveinJesus]

^^One question I have is who defines when the Congress is in Recess; is it the Executive Branch, or the Congress? What the President seems to be saying is that it is the Executive Branch, meaning he could conceivably make Recess appointments whenever he wants. This would certainly be a change from contemporary precedent, and a change in the rules, so to say, especially in regards to Executive authority.

In regards to "changing the rules," I also think there are some points to be made in regards to hypocrisy from the Democrats overall here, lets not forget that the tactic of holding Congress in pro forma session was one used extensively by the Dems to prevent GWB from making recess appointments. The Dems thought it was just peachy back then, as did Senator Obama. Now that the tactic is used against them, we hear about how unfair it is.

This reminds me of Dems belly aching about how political the Judicial Confirmation process has gotten.. just coincidentally in the years following the Bork hearings.

If this stands, the left needs to understand that they will never be able to stop a Republican President from making a Recess appointment, regardless as to whether or not the Senate is in Recess.

-Ted

PS - While I understand the counter argument, I think the Courts would find that it is the Congress who decides when they are, and aren't in Recess, and also think the Courts would be unwilling to define for Congress what that is, given the seperation of powers. Of course, sometimes the Courts do things I can't understand.

[antitox]

Obama is a dictator, a totalitarian. He's been talking about going around congress to get what he wants. This man despises the Constitution and the American system.

In reality, he wants the Hugo Chavez form of government.

He's evil.

[Tall Timbers]

My understanding is that Congress in not currently in recess, technically speaking.

[antitox]

My understanding is that Congress in not currently in recess, technically speaking.

Right. And that is the issue of what is being called an unconstitutional act.

Here is Congressman Pete Session's letter to Obama on the issue:

http://sessions.house.gov/_files/201...gnaturesJM.pdf

[Little Bug]

Obama is a dictator, a totalitarian. He's been talking about going around congress to get what he wants. This man despises the Constitution and the American system.

In reality, he wants the Hugo Chavez form of government.

He's evil.

I have to agree with you,antitox. We absolutely canNOT afford another 4 years of this man! As it is now, I feel it will take YEARS to UNDO what he has done! I wanna go Home!!

[Mom2ten]

Cordray is a joke. He lost his election to DeWine here in Ohio last election. He refused to sue the gov. with other states to fight Obamacare. Once DeWine got into office he filed suit and it was challenged by people. It was voted on this last November and the lawsuit was passed! Cordray will be loved by Obama.