Cordray appointment probably illegal

[JakeStarkey]

It is senate rules issue as outlined by the constitution. The consitution is actually quite long if you've actually read it. And the above mentioned rule is indeed in it.

Article I, Section 6, clause 4 reads:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Don't see how that applies. If they're adjourning normally, consent is implied

Consent cannot be implied in this case. The argument that the President has the authority to do this (I would note that I disagree with his legal team's theory) rests on the fact that no business can be conducted in these pro forma sessions, and therefore the Senate isn't actually in session.

The Court will uphold the intent of the majority: recession is indeed in effect. The minority cannot dictate the contrary, regardless of party.

 

[Polk]

I disagree. I think the courts will take a very formalistic approach and rule the appointments are not constitutional. Doing otherwise opens up way too many doors best left closed.

 

[Bern80]

Don't see how that applies. If they're adjourning normally, consent is implied

Consent cannot be implied in this case. The argument that the President has the authority to do this (I would note that I disagree with his legal team's theory) rests on the fact that no business can be conducted in these pro forma sessions, and therefore the Senate isn't actually in session.

The Court will uphold the intent of the majority: recession is indeed in effect. The minority cannot dictate the contrary, regardless of party.

No the won't. Not if they don't want to be called both a) unconstitutional and b) hypocrites for not allowing it when Reid did it.

 

[Polk]

Consent cannot be implied in this case. The argument that the President has the authority to do this (I would note that I disagree with his legal team's theory) rests on the fact that no business can be conducted in these pro forma sessions, and therefore the Senate isn't actually in session.

The Court will uphold the intent of the majority: recession is indeed in effect. The minority cannot dictate the contrary, regardless of party.

No the won't. Not if they don't want to be called both a) unconstitutional and b) hypocrites for not allowing it when Reid did it.

It would not be unconstitutional for a court to rule pro forma sessions are not legally session and they wouldn't be hypocrites either (not that it would be new), as no one ever challenged the legality of Reid's action in court.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just heard a clever democrat.

The democrats are betting that the American people are so concerned about the economy, they won't notice or care that the president is acting unconstitutionally. It will be justified.

That seems to be very true.

 

[Bern80]

Just heard a clever democrat.

The democrats are betting that the American people are so concerned about the economy, they won't notice or care that the president is acting unconstitutionally. It will be justified.

That seems to be very true.

Most Americans don't know what the constitution is or what's in it much less care about wether or not it's followed.

 

[kwc57]

This isn't a government of the minority. Congress passed the law to create the Consumer Protection Bureau. The President picked a candidate that both Republicans and Democrats agree is qualified..and this isn't his first choice. The minority party can't simply nullify a law they don't like.

It isn't about the law or minority trying to rule. It's about the President not following constitutional procedure. Just because a law passes creating the board doesn't mean the President gets to ignore the rules in appointing someone to that board. He did. He can't unilaterally appoint someone to the board unless congress is in recess. It wasn't so he can't. Clear enough for ya?

Pro forma to obstruct is not constitutional, Obama demonstrated that, and obstructionists of both parties will never be able to do this again. End of story.

Are you willfully stupid?

 

[kwc57]

Don't see how that applies. If they're adjourning normally, consent is implied

Consent cannot be implied in this case. The argument that the President has the authority to do this (I would note that I disagree with his legal team's theory) rests on the fact that no business can be conducted in these pro forma sessions, and therefore the Senate isn't actually in session.

The Court will uphold the intent of the majority: recession is indeed in effect. The minority cannot dictate the contrary, regardless of party.

The court will look at precedent which is that Reid used pro forma sessions to block Bush appointees when it was convenient to his agenda and rule that Obama can't make the appointments for the same reason Bush couldn't. You don't get to change the rules mid-game.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Consent cannot be implied in this case. The argument that the President has the authority to do this (I would note that I disagree with his legal team's theory) rests on the fact that no business can be conducted in these pro forma sessions, and therefore the Senate isn't actually in session.

The Court will uphold the intent of the majority: recession is indeed in effect. The minority cannot dictate the contrary, regardless of party.

The court will look at precedent which is that Reid used pro forma sessions to block Bush appointees when it was convenient to his agenda and rule that Obama can't make the appointments for the same reason Bush couldn't. You don't get to change the rules mid-game.

SCOTUS is going to rule that pro forma does not hold legal weight and rule for the office of the presidency.

The rules will be reset to the intent: the byrds/reids were wrong and so are the mcconnels.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Senate was not in recess. If you want to argue that the president has the power to dictate when the senate is in recess and when it's not, that's a different story.

Not really, because that's as Unconstitutional as him making unilateral appointments when they're not in recess.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the Dems in power in the Senate says it was in recess, the minority cannot overrule it. Minority interp does not rule in this case. The courts will rule for the Dems. Republicans have many other problems without fighting a losing one like this.

Sadly, you have no facts on your side.

Like the fact that the Senate alone does not decide if it's in recess (Never mind the fact that the Senate itself said it was not, right before Obama suddenly needed them to be). The House has to agree to it, and the House did no such thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the Dems in power in the Senate says it was in recess, the minority cannot overrule it. Minority interp does not rule in this case. The courts will rule for the Dems. Republicans have many other problems without fighting a losing one like this.

Sadly, you have no facts on your side.

Like the fact that the Senate alone does not decide if it's in recess (Never mind the fact that the Senate itself said it was not, right before Obama suddenly needed them to be). The House has to agree to it, and the House did no such thing.

The federal judiciary will rule pro forma exceeds both the House and the Senate's authorities.

Presidents should never be held hostage in their appointment power by obstructionist minorities, whether pub or dem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't care what party you favor- this shameless move by Obama sets a very bad precedent. A precedent that will eventually get around the Constitution's senatorial advice and consent clause all together, because what need is there for a confirmation process when the president can just declare Congress to be in recess whenever he wants?

Sure, but it's no worse of a precedent than allowing a determined minority in the Senate to effectively rewrite the law.

What law are they rewriting? The Constitution, which says that all Presidential appointments must have the advice and consent of the Senate? The law that says the Senate has to be in recess for the President to make recess appointments? The Constitution again, which says that the Houses of Congress, not the President, decide when they are in recess?

What "rewriting" is this apocryphal "determined minority in the Senate" doing?

 

[kwc57]

Sadly, you have no facts on your side.

Like the fact that the Senate alone does not decide if it's in recess (Never mind the fact that the Senate itself said it was not, right before Obama suddenly needed them to be). The House has to agree to it, and the House did no such thing.

The federal judiciary will rule pro forma exceeds both the House and the Senate's authorities.

Presidents should never be held hostage in their appointment power by obstructionist minorities, whether pub or dem.

Never trust a crystal ball that came out of a crackerjacks box.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Like the fact that the Senate alone does not decide if it's in recess (Never mind the fact that the Senate itself said it was not, right before Obama suddenly needed them to be). The House has to agree to it, and the House did no such thing.

The federal judiciary will rule pro forma exceeds both the House and the Senate's authorities.

Presidents should never be held hostage in their appointment power by obstructionist minorities, whether pub or dem.

Never trust a crystal ball that came out of a crackerjacks box.

Never ever trust a Tea Pary soothsayer.

 

[daveman]

Sadly, you have no facts on your side.

Like the fact that the Senate alone does not decide if it's in recess (Never mind the fact that the Senate itself said it was not, right before Obama suddenly needed them to be). The House has to agree to it, and the House did no such thing.

The federal judiciary will rule pro forma exceeds both the House and the Senate's authorities.

Presidents should never be held hostage in their appointment power by obstructionist minorities, whether pub or dem.

But they should follow the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Like the fact that the Senate alone does not decide if it's in recess (Never mind the fact that the Senate itself said it was not, right before Obama suddenly needed them to be). The House has to agree to it, and the House did no such thing.

The federal judiciary will rule pro forma exceeds both the House and the Senate's authorities.

Presidents should never be held hostage in their appointment power by obstructionist minorities, whether pub or dem.

But they should follow the Constitution.

All parties should follow the Constitution. The congresses this decade have not done so when following pro forma. Both parties are wrong.

I wanted Bush to have done what Obama has done. It's a shame a Democrat president had to do it. But I am glad he did: presidential appointments should be up and down votes based on advise and consent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did any of you ever stop to think that Obama knows the nomination won't hold up, but made the move anyway to draw attention to the issue/provoke a confrontation with the Senate?

Are you saying Obama is a partisan demagogue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I though Obama studied law at some point.

Leaving aside the constitutional questions, there is a potential statutory problem with the legality of the Cordray appointment under Dodd-Frank. Section 1066 of Dodd-Frank provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform the functions of the CFPB under the subtitle transferring authority to the CFPB from the other agencies “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011.” It turns out that section 1011 is a defined term which provides: “The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

This seems to suggest that even if the President might be able to appoint Cordray under the recess power the full grant of statutory authority wouldn’t transfer to the Bureau unless the statutory language was fulfilled as well.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Legality of Cordray Appointment Under Dodd-Frank

So is nullifying the law.

True story

Obama is trying to nullify the Constitution, not the law.

Not a story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the Dems in power in the Senate says it was in recess, the minority cannot overrule it. Minority interp does not rule in this case. The courts will rule for the Dems. Republicans have many other problems without fighting a losing one like this.

Ever read the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 5

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

This is why someone shows up every three days and gavels the Senate into a pro forma session, the House never gave them permission to adjourn. The president cannot simply say that, because the Senate is not doing business, they are not in session. Being a constitutional scholar Obama knows this, and also knows that, as president, he has the authority to actually force Congress to adjourn if there is a dispute about when to adjourn. If he had actually done that you might, I repeat might, have a point, since he did not you do not.

This isn't a government of the minority. Congress passed the law to create the Consumer Protection Bureau. The President picked a candidate that both Republicans and Democrats agree is qualified..and this isn't his first choice. The minority party can't simply nullify a law they don't like.

Did you object when the Democrats did the same thing to Bush? If not, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!