Adminstration shreds the Constitution. Again.

[Dick Tuck]

As mentioned at the end of the editorial, if Dick Cheney had tried this he'd be accused of making a coup.
Why aren't liberals up in arms over this blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Senate's powers??
Review & Outlook: Elizabeth III - WSJ.com

Bush and Cheney set the record for recess appointments. Oh, and you ought to read the constitution:

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.​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As mentioned at the end of the editorial, if Dick Cheney had tried this he'd be accused of making a coup.
Why aren't liberals up in arms over this blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Senate's powers??
Review & Outlook: Elizabeth III - WSJ.com

Bush and Cheney set the record for recess appointments. Oh, and you ought to read the constitution:

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.​

Except the Senate is not IN recess right now is it? Nor did he appoint her to the position.

 

[Madeline]

Mebbe she'll end nasty practice of hawking credit cards to college freshmen.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As mentioned at the end of the editorial, if Dick Cheney had tried this he'd be accused of making a coup.
Why aren't liberals up in arms over this blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Senate's powers??
Review & Outlook: Elizabeth III - WSJ.com

Have you contacted a psychiatrist about this? Your hysteria is showing

It's the ol' "conservative"/traditional Patriarch Triphttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy.

You know how those Aussies (and, old White-farts...desperate to maintain control o' their Plantation) can be.....

The LAST thing they need, presently, is some uppity-WOMAN givin' 'em grief!!!!​

 

[jillian]

As mentioned at the end of the editorial, if Dick Cheney had tried this he'd be accused of making a coup.
Why aren't liberals up in arms over this blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Senate's powers??
Review & Outlook: Elizabeth III - WSJ.com

Have you contacted a psychiatrist about this? Your hysteria is showing

If he had, his posts might be more sane.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The White House has tapped Elizabeth Warren as a special adviser to help set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, affirming its support for a tough new agency charged with protecting consumers from abusive lenders.

The move allows her to act as an interim head of the CFPB and will enable her to begin setting up the agency immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination. Warren could serve until President Barack Obama nominates a permanent director to serve the five-year term -- a nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama also could nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar with White House deliberations. Warren formally will be named as a special adviser reporting directly to Obama, and serving in a similar capacity to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, later this week.

White House Taps Warren To Set Up Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/us/politics/18warren.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=elizabeth%20warren&st=cse

You weaken your arguments when you parrot right wing blogs without fact checking, The Rabbi.

First, the Wall St Journal editorial page is not a "right wing blog."

It's worse.

It's a(nother) Murdoch Publication!!!!​

 

[The Rabbi]

Too bad that Warren is not director of that outfit. It is about time the power that the banks and other corperations use on the consumer is cut off at the knees.

What our President did was entirely Constitutional, and I hope the first Director of that agency that he appoints will make Warren look like a tame little poodle compared to a wolf.

She is the director of the outfit, or did you not read the article either? There won't be a permanent appointee because she is the permanent appointee, and she is the head of that agency. They can't call her that because that would necessitate a Senate confirmation, and she is unconfirmable.

Perhaps you'd prefer a situation like Venezxuala where the gov't simply takes over the banks?

 

[gautama]

As mentioned at the end of the editorial, if Dick Cheney had tried this he'd be accused of making a coup.
Why aren't liberals up in arms over this blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Senate's powers??
Review & Outlook: Elizabeth III - WSJ.com

This Obami Salaami move is an impeachable offense.

His keister should be hauled over for an impeachment !!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And who's going to protect us from Obama?

 

[Madeline]

Too bad that Warren is not director of that outfit. It is about time the power that the banks and other corperations use on the consumer is cut off at the knees.

What our President did was entirely Constitutional, and I hope the first Director of that agency that he appoints will make Warren look like a tame little poodle compared to a wolf.

She is the director of the outfit, or did you not read the article either? There won't be a permanent appointee because she is the permanent appointee, and she is the head of that agency. They can't call her that because that would necessitate a Senate confirmation, and she is unconfirmable.

Perhaps you'd prefer a situation like Venezxuala where the gov't simply takes over the banks?

The Rabbi, are you of the opinion that this new agency is yet another Cabinet position? That rather than being made part of Treasury, it is coequal to it?

 

[Trajan]

In practice she will run the agency, she has a direct access to the pres. controls a huge budget, hiring, writing regs and shape the agency Now, that may not matter to some but this is an end run around the senate. Its ‘legal’, sure, but lets not have any selectivity here.

Along with Craig Becker, she is another nominee who had/has not a ghost of a chance getting approval, hey if you want to stack Fed. Agencies with folks whom are ideologues to push an agenda, and are problematic as an example- appointed via recess appt. as the chairman of the NLRB; Craig Becker was associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents 1.8 million members, and is a former staff counsel for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). He has not recused himself from (13) cases where in he has conflict of interest despite, promising to do so in writing before his appt btw.


How about Donald Berwick (MedicareObama care chief)


Elizabeth Warren is as problematic as Mssr's. Berwick and Becker.

Need I go back and make hay over machinations like this that drew the ire of msm as applied but the former admin.? When Bolton was appointed via recess appt,. ( much more 'legal or conscionable appt.) You could not pick up a paper or flip on the tube without being subjected to screeds on why this was a violation of the spirit of the advice and consent etc. this, is far worse.

Its ‘legal’, sure, but lets not have any selectivity here now and in the future, and lets not have any angst then when inevitably as it will, the admin. changes and there are appointments being made outside advise and consent scope that don’t align themselves with your political outlook, just because the media has told you its ‘more’ unfair and ignores its own duplicity and hypocrisy.


I’ll post a few snips, feel free to actually read the article.

snip-

But she is also so politically controversial that no less a liberal lion than Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has warned the White House that she probably isn't confirmable.

snip-

The plan is for Ms. Warren to run the new bureau from an office at the Treasury Department. Instead of calling her the "Director" of the bureau—the statutory title for the organization's boss—Mr. Obama has appointed her an "assistant" to him and a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

snip-

When Members of Congress objected to it being "independent" in the way Ms. Warren hoped, Mr. Dodd and the Administration cooked up a plan to make it part of the Federal Reserve without actually answering to anyone there. The bureau has independent rule-making authority and can grant itself an annual budget up to $646 million. It will draw this money from the operations of the Fed, so the bureau needn't deal with the messy intrusions of Congressional appropriators and will therefore receive limited Congressional oversight.

Ms. Warren's bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy—by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers. The bureau's mandate under the new Dodd-Frank law is to ensure that "consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination." If those terms sound vague and overbroad now, wait until Ms. Warren's hand-picked staff begins interpreting existing laws on fair lending and writes new rules.

snip-


Ms. Warren was a vociferous opponent of allowing regulators charged with maintaining the safety and soundness of banks to control this new bureau. No matter how destructive its new rules may be, they can only be rescinded by a two-thirds vote of the Administration's new Financial Stability Oversight Council.

And the bureau will now be staffed and shaped by an "assistant" with no obligation to appear before the Senate. The possibility that an appointed official could hold significant authority is why the framers wrote the Senate into the process of approving the President's senior hires. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Officers of the United States."

snip-
We have here another end-run around Constitutional niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So a bureau inside an agency (the Fed) that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to Congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440604575495681843430198.html




Bolded for truth and I would have agreed as well.

You cannot decide to hold standards, THEN, then dump them 'because you can' and you just happen to agree with them, thats not how its supposed top work and I suspect you ALL know that.....

 

[rightwinger]

As mentioned at the end of the editorial, if Dick Cheney had tried this he'd be accused of making a coup.
Why aren't liberals up in arms over this blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Senate's powers??
Review & Outlook: Elizabeth III - WSJ.com

This Obami Salaami move is an impeachable offense.

His keister should be hauled over for an impeachment !!!

Welcome back.......I knew you had some "Obami Salaamis" left in you

 

[Madeline]

Trajan, my understanding is the composition of the Cabinet has not changed. There are thousands of federal agencies...

The federal government a megalith so byzantine, one company charges $1,550 just for a detailed org chart. Surely you don't think the constitution requires that every agency head appointment has to be confirmed by Congress?

You may not like the new law, or you may not like Warren. But complaining that her appointment is unconstitutional seems disingenuous to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Too bad that Warren is not director of that outfit. It is about time the power that the banks and other corperations use on the consumer is cut off at the knees.

What our President did was entirely Constitutional, and I hope the first Director of that agency that he appoints will make Warren look like a tame little poodle compared to a wolf.

She is the director of the outfit, or did you not read the article either? There won't be a permanent appointee because she is the permanent appointee, and she is the head of that agency. They can't call her that because that would necessitate a Senate confirmation, and she is unconfirmable.

Perhaps you'd prefer a situation like Venezxuala where the gov't simply takes over the banks?

The Rabbi, are you of the opinion that this new agency is yet another Cabinet position? That rather than being made part of Treasury, it is coequal to it?

Is the EPA a cabinet level agency? Dees the head of EPA have to go through confirmation process? What about the Civil Rights COmmission? What about the Trade Representative?
The answer is that none of them are technically in the Cabinet yet the heads of all of them must be confirmed by the Senate.
Why is this appointment different?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trajan, my understanding is the composition of the Cabinet has not changed. There are thousands of federal agencies...

The federal government a megalith so byzantine, one company charges $1,550 just for a detailed org chart. Surely you don't think the constitution requires that every agency head appointment has to be confirmed by Congress?

You may not like the new law, or you may not like Warren. But complaining that her appointment is unconstitutional seems disingenuous to me.

You really need to learn how things work.

The position requires a Senate approval, that is why Obama is playing fast and loose with her position and title. He knows she can not be approved so he Unconstitutional has appointed her anyway. And I do not agree that the title or position they gave her meet the requirements of the Constitution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know this is a long standing political tradition, right?

Remember the U.S. Attorneys scandal a few years ago?

 

[Madeline]

Trajan, my understanding is the composition of the Cabinet has not changed. There are thousands of federal agencies...

The federal government a megalith so byzantine, one company charges $1,550 just for a detailed org chart. Surely you don't think the constitution requires that every agency head appointment has to be confirmed by Congress?

You may not like the new law, or you may not like Warren. But complaining that her appointment is unconstitutional seems disingenuous to me.

You really need to learn how things work.

The position requires a Senate approval, that is why Obama is playing fast and loose with her position and title. He knows she can not be approved so he Unconstitutional has appointed her anyway. And I do not agree that the title or position they gave her meet the requirements of the Constitution.

RetiredGySgt, we disagree. I see no reason why the position needs to be confirmed by the Senate. Not every federal hire is subject to confirmation, just Cabinet heads. Unless this is a new Cabinet post, there is no such requirement that I know about.

Wanna share with us what authority you are relying on?

 

[Madeline]

You know this is a long standing political tradition, right?

Remember the U.S. Attorneys scandal a few years ago?

Yes, I do. One of my complaints about Obama (and later about Holder) is those people did not get their jobs back.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trajan, my understanding is the composition of the Cabinet has not changed. There are thousands of federal agencies...

The federal government a megalith so byzantine, one company charges $1,550 just for a detailed org chart. Surely you don't think the constitution requires that every agency head appointment has to be confirmed by Congress?

You may not like the new law, or you may not like Warren. But complaining that her appointment is unconstitutional seems disingenuous to me.

You really need to learn how things work.

The position requires a Senate approval, that is why Obama is playing fast and loose with her position and title. He knows she can not be approved so he Unconstitutional has appointed her anyway. And I do not agree that the title or position they gave her meet the requirements of the Constitution.

RetiredGySgt, we disagree. I see no reason why the position needs to be confirmed by the Senate. Not every federal hire is subject to confirmation, just Cabinet heads. Unless this is a new Cabinet post, there is no such requirement that I know about.

Wanna share with us what authority you are relying on?

Are the positions I mentioned above, cleverly ignored by you, cabinet positions or not? Are their heads subject to approval?

 

[Madeline]

She is the director of the outfit, or did you not read the article either? There won't be a permanent appointee because she is the permanent appointee, and she is the head of that agency. They can't call her that because that would necessitate a Senate confirmation, and she is unconfirmable.

Perhaps you'd prefer a situation like Venezxuala where the gov't simply takes over the banks?

The Rabbi, are you of the opinion that this new agency is yet another Cabinet position? That rather than being made part of Treasury, it is coequal to it?

Is the EPA a cabinet level agency? Dees the head of EPA have to go through confirmation process? What about the Civil Rights COmmission? What about the Trade Representative?
The answer is that none of them are technically in the Cabinet yet the heads of all of them must be confirmed by the Senate.
Why is this appointment different?

I admit it, The Rabbi...I'm not entirely sure. I think possibly some positions go through the Senate as a matter of custom (which could not be the case as to a brand new job), like the FDA, etc. Add to that, the appointment is not permanent, and the question of whether this is constitutional is pretty well answered for me.