Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to 'Recess Appoint' Cordray in Defiance of Congress (Congress is NOT in recess!)
NY Times ^ | 01-04-2012 | Helene Cooper

Posted on 01/04/2012 8:26:28 AM PST by montag813

President Obama will challenge Senate Republican foes of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by naming Richard Cordray as its director while Congress is out of town, according to a senior administration official.

Testifying before Congress in September, Mr. Cordray said he would make judicious use of lawsuits to enforce financial regulations.

That would allow the agency to establish new regulations over financial institutions, putting into effect elements of the financial regulatory overhaul that was one of the administration’s main achievements in Congress.

Mr. Obama’s exercise of constitutional powers to name top officials without Senate confirmation while Congress is in recess is a stiff challenge to Republicans, who have attempted to block the maneuver by holding “pro forma” sessions over the holidays.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, objected strenuously, saying Mr. Obama was overstepping the bounds of his executive power and leaving the agency open to legal challenges.

“Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: backoffbarry; bhocorruption; bhofascism; bhotyranny; communism; cordray; corruption; democrats; dictator; fraud; govtabuse; hopeychangey; impeach; liberalfascism; lping; nobama2012; obama; obamatruthfile; powergrab; richardcordray; socialistdemocrats; treason; tyranny; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: montag813

You should read the comments at the end of the article.

Talk about brain dead syncophants. OMG.


41 posted on 01/04/2012 10:07:25 AM PST by exit82 (Democrats are the enemies of freedom. We have ideas-the Dems only have ideology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

Great post and great point.


42 posted on 01/04/2012 10:11:24 AM PST by PghBaldy (War Powers Res: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

True but using this excuse that the economy demands that he act, what exactly is his check and balance now? I just want the Republicans to educate the American people on how far left Obama actually is, Obama’s goal in this election will be to win independents and moderates, he can only do that if he can convince Americans that he is right. In this he is extremely wrong and giving red meat to his base only. Using the Presidents own logic now he is saying that he will act without congressional approval on anything. Republicans must act, their response must be measured and balanced but they must do something.


43 posted on 01/04/2012 10:12:56 AM PST by Typical_Whitey (Democrat socialist engineering of America is treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins

And that my friend is exactly how the Republicans should frame it for the American people. Obama The far left radical extremist president strikes again.


44 posted on 01/04/2012 10:18:42 AM PST by Typical_Whitey (Democrat socialist engineering of America is treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Yes ...now go back to class (1st grade? 2nd grade?) and study some more. Maybe you could address my arguments rather than whining about my use of a few CAPS and exclamation points.


45 posted on 01/04/2012 10:21:35 AM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Reporter: “Senator X, do you believe this appointment is unconstitutional?”

Senator X: “Yes.”

Reporter: “What do you plan to do about it?”

Senator X: [crickets]


46 posted on 01/04/2012 10:22:15 AM PST by Sharkfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard

What you ask for will be granted if you make your arguments in a more civil manner. Allcaps (yelling) and exclamation points (more yelling) do not qualify on that point. Similarly on the childish insults.


47 posted on 01/04/2012 10:29:05 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Yeah? So? Watcha gonna do about it? He’s on TV now, before a group of Leftist weenies and 5th generation welfare recipients, daring Congress to stop him.


48 posted on 01/04/2012 10:52:24 AM PST by pabianice (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera

As a fellow Ohioan, that’s always been the impression I’ve gotten from him. I just can’t believe that a 5-time Jeopardy champion could be so stupid when it comes to politics.


49 posted on 01/04/2012 11:08:44 AM PST by conservativebuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Genius move from the "constitutional law professor."

If he were Bush and Pelosi were Speaker, "impeachable offense" would be on people's lips.

50 posted on 01/04/2012 11:44:46 AM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
The Constitution is silent on how long of a break constitutes a "recess" and thus there is no constitutional grounds for challenging this.

You may be correct in you assessment but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever made a definitive ruling on the subject. It is clear the original intent was to provide for continuity of government, not a method to circumvent the confirmation process.

Reasonable people, even when they disagree, learn to coexist and while both parties have abused the recess appointment, neither has gone to such an extreme as to challenge the confirmation requirement itself. Oboma, in his arrogance, may force this issue and if the Supreme Court is required to rule, I don't think even the liberals would support such an obvious circumvention of the checks and balances that are one of the guiding principals of our Constitution.

51 posted on 01/04/2012 12:02:02 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thank You Rush

An even better reply. Thanks!


52 posted on 01/04/2012 12:14:50 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Once again The Kenyan wipes his ass with the Constitution.


53 posted on 01/04/2012 1:10:00 PM PST by clintonh8r (Living well is no longer the best revenge. Revenge is now the best revenge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etcb
...I don't think even the liberals would support such an obvious circumvention of the checks and balances that are one of the guiding principals of our Constitution.

Good point. I hope you're right about the libs. But I have my doubts. FWIW I have a problem with recess appointments no matter who makes them because it tends to circumvent the Constitutional role of the Senate in advise and consent. In that sense it waters down the checks and balances, as you note.

Of course, like many here, I tend to take a somewhat idealistic view of the process. It would work as we desire if Senators would actually be statesmen first and put the interests of the nation ahead of party and personalities. But as we've seen, that is more often the exception than the rule. While both sides are guilty, my impression is that the 'Rats are more prone to put partisan interests ahead of principle.

54 posted on 01/04/2012 1:26:33 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

The A$$hat just did again by appointing 3 members to the NLRB. I goes that is now a totally RAT union organization.

This Jackanape needs to be stopped NOW!


55 posted on 01/04/2012 1:33:46 PM PST by rhubarbk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: etcb
It is possible that the courts would say to him, "If your own DOJ agrees with the 1993 definition put forwards by the Clinton DOJ, how can you now justify acting in a contrary manner," but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

Clearly it goes against the original intent of the Founding Fathers. I just don't think the courts will block it. In fact, I don't think the Court would even grant certiorari in such a challenge.
56 posted on 01/04/2012 1:59:09 PM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters

Thanks for the ping. We’ll see if the Republicans can find enough of a collective spine between them to do anything more than complain about Imam Obama’s unconstitutional power grabs.


57 posted on 01/04/2012 2:01:34 PM PST by lonevoice (Klepto Baracka Marxo, impeach we much. We will much about that be committed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: montag813
The people saying that the attempted appointment of the Director the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is not valid under the statute (much less the Constitution) seem to be correct.

SEC. 1066. INTERIM AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011.
(b) INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.—The Department of the Treasury may provide administrative services necessary to support the Bureau before the designated transfer date.

Source: PUBLIC LAW 111 - 203 - DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

At the least, it can be argued that the Director cannot perform any of his duties, and they must continue to be performed by the Secretary of the Treasury, until confirmed by the Senate.

58 posted on 01/04/2012 2:03:32 PM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner

McConnell needs to go NOW. He is a useless empty suit. Initial bluster followed by inevitable surrender. When is one of these politicians, all of whom have sworn to defend the Constitution, actually going to do something to defend the Constitution?


59 posted on 01/04/2012 2:07:53 PM PST by littleharbour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Thanks for your reply. I agree that recess appointments are not necessary in these times and, when used, actually do more damage to the system than they are worth. Whether it is a John Bolton or this current Cordray, no person is indispensable.

While democrats are generally more aggressive in pursuing their agenda, their leadership is usually mature enough to avoid putting the opposition in an untenable position. Neither side in the Senate wants a constitutional confrontation over recess appointments because they both have more to lose than to gain. Oboma, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to recognize any limits or to care about the long term consequences.

Regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, the Supreme Court is the Establishment and their existence is dependent on upholding the system. While they would not want to be involved in this, if the case is brought to them, they would likely deal with it like an earlier court did with United States v. Nixon.


60 posted on 01/04/2012 2:38:10 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson