ACLU Preparing to File Lawsuit over Cordray Appointment

[Trinnity]

This is so new, I can't even find an article on it yet.

So, I'm going to quote from what I just saw on FOX News in an interview between Martha McCallum and Jay Sekulow.

Martha: As we've been telling you, today President Obama is visiting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - that's the new agency that's been created to protect us from financial agencies and the wrath we saw in 2008.
And he appointed Richard Cordray as the Chief of that agency - and that's sparked a huge controversy...and a newly filed lawsuit today, is claiming that President Obama violated the Constitution by not seeking congressional approval for that appointment.

Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Jay welcome.
So tell me about the lawsuit.

Jay: We haven't filed it yet; we're looking at all the options. We're not gonna be the only ones, btw, looks like there's gonna be 3 or 4.

Here's what it is: There's two provisions of the Constitution at play. Article 1, which is the congressional authority - which sets their own recess schedule, and there's article 2, the presidential authority. And the Congress isn't in recess.
What you've got is a situation where the presidents can make recess appointments when the Congress is in recess. But that's not the case here.

What's making it even more complicated is, the nominees for the National Labor Relations board were just made toward the end of December, so they didn't even have time for hearings.

This is a usurpation of congressional authority, and a power grab by the administration that frankly, I don't think we've ever seen in our constitutional history. This was a very brazen and bold move by the president.

Martha: The more you dig into this, the more there appears there's an issue here. The Senate was in pro-forma session....technically being in session, but really no one doing any business. This tactic was used a lot during the Bush administration and President Obama was in favor of it then.

Jay: Right. In fact, Obama was one of the architects in 2006 of putting in
this pro-forma plan so Congress could NOT get in a recess situation. Let me take this point a bit further, btw. The democrats keep saying "oh this is just pro-forma" - you know that tax payroll extension that they all debated last month? That was done in a pro forma session.

So this argument they have that nothing is actually happening is
A) false, and B) this is the democrats own technique, it's their own scheme,, it's their own method, and they set the precedent for this. So for them now to say it's unjust, when they're the ones who implemented it, is not gonna fly legally and it's not gonna fly with the American people.

Martha: Do you think there will focus and attention on this? Will it be followed through on, in a way that could perhaps overturn these appointments?

Jay: I think there's a realistic chance. I think you're gonna see litigation. That'll be up to the courts to decide. And, I think the president has just unintentionally created a political issue; a huge political issue. Because the President of the United States is President of the United States. He's the chief executive officer. He's not the King, he's not the Sovereign. He doesn't get to make up the rules on his own. He has to play by our rule book. And our rule book is the United States Constitution.

That has been shredded here. There are specific provisions of the Constitution at play. There's a clash now between the executive and the legislative branch of the government and that's going to be resolved in the courts, but at the end of the day, the President has set up his own constitutional crisis. He may have had political reasons for doing it, but he's going to pay the consequences.

Martha: And essentially what's behind some of the dissatisfaction with the creation of this new agency is that people feel that it's going to be anti-business. We looked this up this morning - this is a brand new government agency, and they employ 700 people already - at this agency !

Jay: And the US Chamber of Commerce is very much opposed to this, as is a lot of business interest, but frankly I think it's not just going to be the chamber, it's gonna be the American people, realizing what's happened to the Constitution here.

Martha: 700 people employed !! You've got 3,846 people - at last count - at the SEC and we all know what a great job they did alerting the American public to the problems that were happening to the financial industries in 2008.

-end of interview-

Well, I can't wait to see the admin spin this - that it doesn't matter. Hmmm-

Do we have a POTUS who is circumventing the Congress and the Constitution? Hasn't he made it clear already in words and deed that he sees the Constitution as an impediment to his agenda? Hasn't, in fact, he said he will go around Congress?

Is he a president or a King?

 

[konradv]

Brazen? I think it's a president hitting his stride. He was green coming in, which is why I supported Hillary, but he's learned a thing or two. Let the Reps cry about this and run to their beloved ACLU. What the American people see is a president doing his job and a Congress that either isn't or is being prevented from doing so by those who put politics over country.

 

[daveman]

Brazen? I think it's a president hitting his stride. He was green coming in, which is why I supported Hillary, but he's learned a thing or two. Let the Reps cry about this and run to their beloved ACLU. What the American people see is a president doing his job and a Congress that either isn't or is being prevented from doing so by those who put politics over country.

 

[manifold]

Gee, big surprise that those left-wing, DNC stooges known as the ACLU would be going after Presi...

Wait wut?

 

[Trinnity]

Brazen? I think it's a president hitting his stride. He was green coming in, which is why I supported Hillary, but he's learned a thing or two. Let the Reps cry about this and run to their beloved ACLU. What the American people see is a president doing his job and a Congress that either isn't or is being prevented from doing so by those who put politics over country.

Hitting his stride, indeed. BREAKING THE LAW in fact.

What the public sees is a Marxist dictator, and we're gonna fire him in NOvember.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Brazen? I think it's a president hitting his stride. He was green coming in, which is why I supported Hillary, but he's learned a thing or two. Let the Reps cry about this and run to their beloved ACLU.

What the American people see is a president doing his job and a Congress that either isn't or is being prevented from doing so by those who put politics over country.

There's no doubt whatsoever thatif GWB had tried this, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

 

[Trinnity]

Well, there's a little about that in the OP.....

 

[Amelia]

brazen? I think it's a president hitting his stride. He was green coming in, which is why i supported hillary, but he's learned a thing or two. Let the reps cry about this and run to their beloved aclu.

what the american people see is a president doing his job and a congress that either isn't or is being prevented from doing so by those who put politics over country.

there's no doubt whatsoever thatif gwb had tried this, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

qft!

 

[Zander]

Obama is trying to show the sheeple in his base how "tough" he is.....instead he showed the entire country how arrogant and stupid he is. Break out the pop corn folks, this is going to be entertaining.

 

[zzzz]

Many Presidents have tried to expand the powers of the Executive branch but non have yet approached Lincolns disregard towards American liberty.

...did you know that Lincoln suspended civil liberties in the North, including the writ of habeas corpus? That he filled the jails with more than 13,000 political prisoners, all incarcerated without due process? The Supreme Court protested Lincoln’s disregard for our Constitutional protections, but the President replied he had a war to fight. Since he commanded the army, Lincoln won that argument.

Abraham Lincoln, Political Tyrant

 

[Trinnity]

Many Presidents have tried to expand the powers of the Executive branch but non have yet approached Lincolns disregard towards American liberty.

...did you know that Lincoln suspended civil liberties in the North, including the writ of habeas corpus? That he filled the jails with more than 13,000 political prisoners, all incarcerated without due process? The Supreme Court protested Lincoln’s disregard for our Constitutional protections, but the President replied he had a war to fight. Since he commanded the army, Lincoln won that argument.

Abraham Lincoln, Political Tyrant

FDR gets a spot on that list.

 

[George Costanza]

Marxist dictator

Can't you folks just STOP with this ridiculous nonsense? All you do is cause yourselves to lose credibility BIG time. No one in their right mind would consider President Obama to be anything even remotely resembling a "Marxist dictator."

You might not agree with many of the things he does, but calling him a "Marxist dictator" only makes you look stupid. Say what it is he is doing that you don't like and then say why you don't like it. Then people would at least listen to you. Call him a "Marxist dictator" and people just shake their heads and turn away - even people who, themselves, don't care for him all that much.

 

[George Costanza]

Obama is trying to show the sheeple in his base how "tough" he is.....instead he showed the entire country how arrogant and stupid he is. Break out the pop corn folks, this is going to be entertaining.

Possibly not a good idea to use the term "arrogant" to describe Obama, Z-Man - not on the heels of Mssrs. Bush and Cheney.

 

[George Costanza]

This is so new, I can't even find an article on it yet.

So, I'm going to quote from what I just saw on FOX News in an interview between Martha McCallum and Jay Sekulow.

Martha: As we've been telling you, today President Obama is visiting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - that's the new agency that's been created to protect us from financial agencies and the wrath we saw in 2008.
And he appointed Richard Cordray as the Chief of that agency - and that's sparked a huge controversy...and a newly filed lawsuit today, is claiming that President Obama violated the Constitution by not seeking congressional approval for that appointment.

Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Jay welcome.
So tell me about the lawsuit.

Jay: We haven't filed it yet; we're looking at all the options. We're not gonna be the only ones, btw, looks like there's gonna be 3 or 4.

Here's what it is: There's two provisions of the Constitution at play. Article 1, which is the congressional authority - which sets their own recess schedule, and there's article 2, the presidential authority. And the Congress isn't in recess.
What you've got is a situation where the presidents can make recess appointments when the Congress is in recess. But that's not the case here.

What's making it even more complicated is, the nominees for the National Labor Relations board were just made toward the end of December, so they didn't even have time for hearings.

This is a usurpation of congressional authority, and a power grab by the administration that frankly, I don't think we've ever seen in our constitutional history. This was a very brazen and bold move by the president.

Martha: The more you dig into this, the more there appears there's an issue here. The Senate was in pro-forma session....technically being in session, but really no one doing any business. This tactic was used a lot during the Bush administration and President Obama was in favor of it then.

Jay: Right. In fact, Obama was one of the architects in 2006 of putting in
this pro-forma plan so Congress could NOT get in a recess situation. Let me take this point a bit further, btw. The democrats keep saying "oh this is just pro-forma" - you know that tax payroll extension that they all debated last month? That was done in a pro forma session.

So this argument they have that nothing is actually happening is
A) false, and B) this is the democrats own technique, it's their own scheme,, it's their own method, and they set the precedent for this. So for them now to say it's unjust, when they're the ones who implemented it, is not gonna fly legally and it's not gonna fly with the American people.

Martha: Do you think there will focus and attention on this? Will it be followed through on, in a way that could perhaps overturn these appointments?

Jay: I think there's a realistic chance. I think you're gonna see litigation. That'll be up to the courts to decide. And, I think the president has just unintentionally created a political issue; a huge political issue. Because the President of the United States is President of the United States. He's the chief executive officer. He's not the King, he's not the Sovereign. He doesn't get to make up the rules on his own. He has to play by our rule book. And our rule book is the United States Constitution.

That has been shredded here. There are specific provisions of the Constitution at play. There's a clash now between the executive and the legislative branch of the government and that's going to be resolved in the courts, but at the end of the day, the President has set up his own constitutional crisis. He may have had political reasons for doing it, but he's going to pay the consequences.

Martha: And essentially what's behind some of the dissatisfaction with the creation of this new agency is that people feel that it's going to be anti-business. We looked this up this morning - this is a brand new government agency, and they employ 700 people already - at this agency !

Jay: And the US Chamber of Commerce is very much opposed to this, as is a lot of business interest, but frankly I think it's not just going to be the chamber, it's gonna be the American people, realizing what's happened to the Constitution here.

Martha: 700 people employed !! You've got 3,846 people - at last count - at the SEC and we all know what a great job they did alerting the American public to the problems that were happening to the financial industries in 2008.

-end of interview-

Well, I can't wait to see the admin spin this - that it doesn't matter. Hmmm-

Do we have a POTUS who is circumventing the Congress and the Constitution? Hasn't he made it clear already in words and deed that he sees the Constitution as an impediment to his agenda? Hasn't, in fact, he said he will go around Congress?

Is he a president or a King?

Um . . . . your thread title has it that the ACLU is about to file a lawsuit against Pres. O. Yet the article in the OP is all about the ACLJ filing the suit. The American Center for Law and Justice is not the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).