Cordray appointment probably illegal

[Quantum Windbag]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Is it a Constitutional issue or a Senate rules issue? To my mind the Constitution isn't that detailed, so it would seem to be a Senate rule. Since Reid is the leader there, it would seem to be his call, NOT the court's.

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

There is no such thing as implied consent. If there were the Senate would not bother holding pro forma sessions, would they?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How did he demonstrate it? Do you honestly think that, when he actually has the power to force Congress to go into recess, a simple declaration that them being in session is not enough for them to be in session demonstrates anything but contempt for something he actively supported when he was a Senator?

Are you actually going to address the issue of this thread?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Funny thing. the Senate approved the payroll tax extension by unanimous consent three days after they "recessed" and started these pro forma sessions. Does that make the law he signed invalid because it was not actually passed by the Senate during regular its session? Is Obama such a bad lawyer that he does not realize the trap he is putting himself into by arguing one thing while assuming that something else is valid just because he likes it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You think the court is arbitrarily toss out decades of precedent just because Obama did something you like?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Reset to the intent?

The intent was that, since it usually took months to gather Congress in the 18th century, the president could make emergency appointments to keep the government running. I would love to see the rules reset to the intent and all recess appointments be prohibited unless Congress cannot get into session withing a week.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That was funny, why would they rule that when the constitution clearly says that they can make their own rules?

 

[daveman]

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.

Funny thing. the Senate approved the payroll tax extension by unanimous consent three days after they "recessed" and started these pro forma sessions. Does that make the law he signed invalid because it was not actually passed by the Senate during regular its session? Is Obama such a bad lawyer that he does not realize the trap he is putting himself into by arguing one thing while assuming that something else is valid just because he likes it?

I personally don't think Obama is smart enough to have given it that much thought.

He listens to his bootlickers too much. And all they tell him is how awesome he is.

He's a classic narcissist.

 

[rdean]

Without the appointment, the department would probably die.

The question here is why Republicans feel American Consumers shouldn't be protected from the "Flim Flam Man"? Unless Republicans ARE the "Flim Flam Man". Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs"? WMDs? Pure "Flim Flam". The American People have been "Flim Flammed". Obama is just trying to protect individuals. REPUBLICANS SCREAM NO! IT'S "SOCIALISM". More "Flim Flam".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Without the appointment, the department would probably die.

The question here is why Republicans feel American Consumers shouldn't be protected from the "Flim Flam Man"? Unless Republicans ARE the "Flim Flam Man". Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs"? WMDs? Pure "Flim Flam". The American People have been "Flim Flammed". Obama is just trying to protect individuals. REPUBLICANS SCREAM NO! IT'S "SOCIALISM". More "Flim Flam".

Something to think about, if you can.

The way the CFPB is currently structured it does not answer to Congress at all, and it gets money by having the fed print it. That means that, when a Republican eventually gets elected president, the new director of the CFPB, appointed during a non existent recess, can unilaterally decide that banks can charge high interest rates on loans, force customers to pay late fees even if they pay on time, and all the other bad things you think the government needs to stop. Congress will not be able to do anything because Obama set it up so that the agency can ignore everyone.

The Republicans want the agency restructured so that it answers to Congress, something you should support just tp prevent the scenario I outlined above.

 

[rdean]

Without the appointment, the department would probably die.

The question here is why Republicans feel American Consumers shouldn't be protected from the "Flim Flam Man"? Unless Republicans ARE the "Flim Flam Man". Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs"? WMDs? Pure "Flim Flam". The American People have been "Flim Flammed". Obama is just trying to protect individuals. REPUBLICANS SCREAM NO! IT'S "SOCIALISM". More "Flim Flam".

Something to think about, if you can.

The way the CFPB is currently structured it does not answer to Congress at all, and it gets money by having the fed print it. That means that, when a Republican eventually gets elected president, the new director of the CFPB, appointed during a non existent recess, can unilaterally decide that banks can charge high interest rates on loans, force customers to pay late fees even if they pay on time, and all the other bad things you think the government needs to stop. Congress will not be able to do anything because Obama set it up so that the agency can ignore everyone.

The Republicans want the agency restructured so that it answers to Congress, something you should support just tp prevent the scenario I outlined above.

Link?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Says who? That's awfully convenient don't you think to assume that the Senate simply asjourning is de facto consent for the house to adjourn and vic versa. Sorry bud. Doens't work that way. Show some integrity and admit when you're wrong.

It's not only "awfully convenient", it's flat-out not how it works. Consent must be formal and explicit. Them's the rules.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I don't remember the law saying anything about "type of session" being relevant.

 

[daveman]

Without the appointment, the department would probably die.

The question here is why Republicans feel American Consumers shouldn't be protected from the "Flim Flam Man"? Unless Republicans ARE the "Flim Flam Man". Remember "Jobs Jobs Jobs"? WMDs? Pure "Flim Flam". The American People have been "Flim Flammed". Obama is just trying to protect individuals. REPUBLICANS SCREAM NO! IT'S "SOCIALISM". More "Flim Flam".

Consumers already have legal recourse. This agency is just another means to gain control over business.

Of course, you feel (not think) that anything Obama does is good, so you don't have a problem with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I also think the court knows something that most liberals are too dumb to grasp: one of the major purposes of the separation of powers and the checks and balances built into our system is PRECISELY to allow one branch of government to obstruct the others on occasion. "Advise and consent" also carries with it the ability to NOT consent; otherwise, there'd be no point in it existing at all.

 

[Polk]

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.

I don't remember the law saying anything about "type of session" being relevant.

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

 

[daveman]

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.

I don't remember the law saying anything about "type of session" being relevant.

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

Obama doesn't get to decide whether they're in session or not. He can call them into session or adjourn them with sufficient reason, but he has done neither. And Article 1, Section 5 says the House and Senate must agree to a recess. That has not happened.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I don't remember the law saying anything about "type of session" being relevant.

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

Look at the name. "Pro forma SESSIONS". There you go.

Furthermore, last time I checked, Congress determines what are and are not Congressional sessions, not the President. I think this egomaniac needs to get over the idea that Congress works for him.

 

[rdean]

I'm just trying to figure out why it wasn't "illegal" when Reagan, Bush, Bush did it hundreds of times?

Kind of like "reconciliation". It's only bad when Democrats do it.

 

[Zander]

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.

I don't remember the law saying anything about "type of session" being relevant.

No one is taking about types of sessions. The argument is that pro forma sessions aren't really sessions at all.

Sorry Polk, it is not the President's job to decide what a "session" is.

 

[Zander]

I'm just trying to figure out why it wasn't "illegal" when Reagan, Bush, Bush did it hundreds of times?

Kind of like "reconciliation". It's only bad when Democrats do it.

You're really stupid eh? I always thought you were pretending.....silly me.