Adminstration shreds the Constitution. Again.

[rightwinger]

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.

If it is not constitutional, I'm sure Rabbi can challenge the appointment through the courts and he will win

 

[Madeline]

Well, this is true. If Warren is not occupying her seat legally, any rule she passes up the food chain is defective. I'm sure the banking lawyers know this.

BTW, just out of curiosity, why's Warren thought to be so unsuitable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Rabbi wrote in part:

Just because something is legal does not make it right.

Agreed. But if it is "legal" it is necessarily "constitutional", The Rabbi. I thought this Op was about an unconstitutional act by Obama?

You know better than that Maddie. There are a lot of laws that eventually get declared unconstitutional, that does not make any actions carried out under those laws illegal. Take the poll tax as an example, that was certainly legal, but definitely unconstitutional.

 

[Trajan]

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.

I never said it was against the law Madeline, I said clearly it may be legal...etc....


It appears to me that she is in effect the agency head, that would due its scope require senate confirmation,as shes has been given all of the tools BUT the "title". The bait and switch Dodd pulled is the trail in the jungle aside from the scope of the agency itself.

There are many agencies that are not cabinet positions that/but require senate consultation as to A&C, I made example of 2 others in my a-fore post.

I will keep tabs on this, what you will see in say 6 months or so is a formal head of this agency confirmed by senate and the proof in the putting will be; not a thing in the agency will change, the power will be commensurate proving the point. I am patient, we'll see, If I am wrong, I'm wrong., won't be the first time.

I will tell you what bothers me is, the width and breath of the this agencies mandate and power should have everyone upset, that it will fund itself up to 650 Million dollars, regulate the orgs. and structures outlined, yet operate outside Congressional oversight, no matter your party affiliation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.​

Very astute misapplication of the constitution. this is not a recess appointment.

 

[Charles_Main]

Maybe I am wrong, But I could have sworn the Senate was not in recess?

 

[Madeline]

True, but rule making is a bit different. You can attack a rule as substantively defective (usually, broader than contemplated by law) or procedurally defective (passed in some manner that departs from the applicable administrative law, like failing to hold hearings). If Warren is in her position unconstitutionally, she won't be able to pass along any defensible rules.

One of those rare self-correcting problems in government.

 

[Trajan]

Well, this is true. If Warren is not occupying her seat legally, any rule she passes up the food chain is defective. I'm sure the banking lawyers know this.

BTW, just out of curiosity, why's Warren thought to be so unsuitable?

its in the article and I made a like example in my header thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Where does this new agency fit into that chart?

 

[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.

I never said it was against the law Madeline, I said clearly it may be legal...etc....


It appears to me that she is in effect the agency head, that would due its scope require senate confirmation,as shes has been given all of the tools BUT the "title". The bait and switch Dodd pulled is the trail in the jungle aside from the scope of the agency itself.

There are many agencies that are not cabinet positions that/but require senate consultation as to A&C, I made example of 2 others in my a-fore post.

I will keep tabs on this, what you will see in say 6 months or so is a formal head of this agency confirmed by senate and the proof in the putting will be; not a thing in the agency will change, the power will be commensurate proving the point. I am patient, we'll see, If I am wrong, I'm wrong., won't be the first time.

I will tell you what bothers me is, the width and breath of the this agencies mandate and power should have everyone upset, that it will fund itself up to 650 Million dollars, regulate the orgs. and structures outlined, yet operate outside Congressional oversight, no matter your party affiliation.

Well, like any federal agency (e.g., the IRS) she cannot pass rules that lack an adequate basis in the empowering legislation. I haven't read it and prolly wouldn't understand it completely if I did...I hated Banking Law. But she's not in a different position from the guy who runs the FDA, the HUD, etc. None of them have what you would call "congressional oversight".

 

[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.

Where does this new agency fit into that chart?

I dunno, Quantum Windbag. Presumably right under Treasury.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It is an end-run around the Constitutiion. The answer is all those require Senate confirmation. If this were "permanent" it would require it too. Calling it temporary and making up a title solely to avoid a fight is exactly the same kind of crap the Dems used to get health care passed.
This will be challenged not in the courts but at the ballot, in 45 days or so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How about this one, the law that set up this agency specified that the head of it had to be approved by the Senate. Even the Washington Post is unhappy about the way Obama is doing this.

Certainly, her dim view of the banking industry is fully reciprocated -- and, egged on by Wall Street, Republicans probably would have filibustered her nomination to be the bureau's first director. That, in our view, would have been unjustified. Ideologically contentious as she may be, Ms. Warren is qualified for the job. In an ideal world, as opposed to the polarized Washington in which we actually live, she would have received at least a prompt hearing and a floor vote.
Still, Republicans would have been within their rights. Can the same be said for Mr. Obama's end run of the Senate confirmation process? Senate confirmation of the bureau's director was one of the few checks Congress built into an office that otherwise will be very powerful and independent. Nevertheless, the statute establishing the bureau gives Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner interim authority in the absence of a permanent director, at least until July 21 -- when the bureau officially absorbs and consolidates various federal agencies' consumer-protection functions. And, under the arrangement the president outlined, Ms. Warren will work for Mr. Geithner. Of course, she'll also be on the White House staff, reporting to the president -- as Mr. Geithner does. That gives her a free hand, indeed, and as Mr. Obama said Friday, she'll be advising on everything from policy to personnel to a nominee for director, which might yet be Elizabeth Warren. Only actual rule-making will have to wait, for now.
Mr. Obama would have been better off picking a more confirmable candidate, as some senators from his own party had urged. Even a recess appointment for Ms. Warren -- which would have lasted through 2011 -- would have been preferable in terms of sticking to constitutionally prescribed processes for filling federal offices. But either move would have infuriated progressives, who still dream of a full five-year term for Ms. Warren -- and whose support Mr. Obama needs in November. For all intents and purposes, the president has created, and filled, a de facto directorship. This might have been in keeping with the letter of the laws, but not with their spirit.

washingtonpost.com

By looking at only the conservative side, and dismissing it as partisan, you are being partisan yourself.

 

[Madeline]

Then I concede. Senate confirmation is not a constitutional requirement but it is evidentially required by the enabling legislation. I cannot image what Obama is thinking.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then I concede. Senate confirmation is not a constitutional requirement but it is evidentially required by the enabling legislation. I cannot image what Obama is thinking.

He's thinking the American people are too stupid to notice.
Based on responses in this thread he might be right.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I wonder what other news organizations are saying about this? I wonder if they

Why? Do you get your views from a majority of news organizations?
But you don't care about corruption in government so what could I expect?

shredding the constitution and now corruption? wow, you ought to do undercover reporting for a major news org.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Isn't Socialism fun? Get out and vote. Make 2010 count people.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hysteria is better! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-Obama-got-elected