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

Skip to comments.

Republican lawmaker (Spencer Bachus): Obama recess appointment is attack on Constitution
The Hill ^ | 1/04/12 | Pete Kasperowicz

Posted on 01/04/2012 10:18:49 PM PST by Libloather

Republican lawmaker: Obama recess appointment is attack on Constitution
By Pete Kasperowicz - 01/04/12 12:39 PM ET

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) on Wednesday predicted that the Obama administration's decision to recess-appoint Richard Cordray as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) would lead to numerous legal challenges against the agency that will render it unable to function for the foreseeable future.

"President Obama has delegitimized the CFPB and has opened the agency up to legitimate legal challenges that will cripple it for years," Bachus said. "The greatest threat to our economy right now is uncertainty, and the president just guaranteed there will be even more uncertainty."

Bachus did not threaten a legal challenge from Congress, and others have suggested that only a financial institution that is harmed by a CFPB rule would have the standing to challenge Cordray's appointment.

Still, Bachus was one of a several Republicans who blasted the Cordray nomination as an end-run around what had been an established rule that no recess appointments can be made as long as the Senate is meeting in occasional, pro forma sessions. The Senate met in a pro forma session Tuesday and has another one planned for Friday.

Bachus said the decision to ignore this precedent is an attack on the Constitution.

"The President's unprecedented decision to attempt to circumvent the Constitution and ignore the law he himself signed is the clearest indication yet that he has abandoned any effort to work in a bipartisan manner to strengthen accountability and oversight of this new government bureaucracy," he said.

Bachus said Republicans have sought to modify the CFPB, including by creating a five-member board to run the agency and setting up a process for reviewing CFPB rules. These changes were included in a bill that passed the House last year.

The sponsor of that bill, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), also complained about the recess appointment on Wednesday.

"I am deeply disappointed in President Obama's decision to circumvent Congress and completely disregard our government's system of checks and balances in order to appoint a director to the flawed CFPB," Duffy said.

Duffy noted that more than 40 senators told Obama last year that they would oppose any nomination to the CFPB as it currently stands. "President Obama's decision to ignore these concerns has set a horrible precedent of allowing the president to side-step Congress and the American people at his own convenience," he said.

One of the signatories to the Senate letter, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), said Wednesday that he too is "deeply disappointed" in the White House announcement.

"Republicans have asked the president to work with us to give the newly created — and extremely powerful — board a level of transparency and accountability," Johanns said. "Americans don't want another unelected czar with no accountability appointed by this administration. But the president is choosing to dismiss these concerns in favor of political convenience."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: appointment; bachus; constitution; recess
"...opened the agency up to legitimate legal challenges that will cripple it for years"

Just do it.

1 posted on 01/04/2012 10:18:59 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Let’s be very clear. Obama didn’t appoint Cordray as head of the CFPB. He doesn’t have that power. If he claims to have done so, he’s lying and can be ignored. Any affected organization should refuse to acknowledge the CFPB as legitimate as long as Cordray attempts to direct it. Will that land them in court? Sure. That’s to be desired.


2 posted on 01/04/2012 10:32:49 PM PST by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Republican lawmaker (Spencer Bachus): Obama recess appointment is attack on Constitution

Wow, what profound insight! Next, the 'Pubbies will tell us that BO is half black!

The Congress gave the POTUS this power and the Congress will have to take it away. Too many presidents on either side of the aisle have abused their authority, not just zero.

3 posted on 01/04/2012 10:38:46 PM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

If these lawmakers are genuinely upset by all of this, they should use their true power and ZERO some budgets for the agencies involved. Congress could totally shutdown the NLRB by turning it’s budget into a ‘circle’ in the federal budget.

If they don’t do so, they are simply making a bunch of noise when they are complaining to the media.


4 posted on 01/04/2012 10:42:43 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

They also should ignore all rules by the NLRB as it lacks a legal quorum, three of it’s ‘members’ being fraudulently ‘appointed’. That should be their first argument in any court proceedings.


5 posted on 01/04/2012 10:45:17 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

Can’t the House withhold funding?

And isn’t Bachaus the person who ought to resign due to self-dealing corruption that would put any lay person in jail?


6 posted on 01/04/2012 10:58:55 PM PST by Aria ( "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“Obama recess appointment is attack on Constitution”

Um, actually it’s ANOTHER attack on our Constitution!

Kind of like the Stalinist “Indefinite Detention of American citizens without trial” by “Presidential Authority” so many from both sides of the isle approved a few days ago.

Congress obliges in tearing up the constitution one day and then expects the socialist in the white house to abide by that same constitution the next day?
Yah, THAT is completely reasonable! /S

This sort of stupidity is why we need a genuine Constitutional Constructionist with the guts to act on congressional tripe as our next president!
“Conservative” has been watered down to the point of meaning nothing more than whatever the MSM wants it to mean when they use it as a pejorative term.


7 posted on 01/04/2012 11:40:27 PM PST by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; mkjessup; Gilbo_3; NFHale; ..
RE :”House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) on Wednesday predicted that the Obama administration's decision to recess-appoint Richard Cordray as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) would lead to numerous legal challenges against the agency that will render it unable to function for the foreseeable future. “President Obama has delegitimized the CFPB and has opened the agency up to legitimate legal challenges that will cripple it for years,” Bachus said. “The greatest threat to our economy right now is uncertainty, and the president just guaranteed there will be even more uncertainty.” Bachus did not threaten a legal challenge from Congress, and others have suggested that only a financial institution that is harmed by a CFPB rule would have the standing to challenge Cordray’s appointment.

From what I have read there is no basis for a lawsuit unless someone has been harmed who can file the suit, called standing. That could take many months before it happens and the specific case may not make Obama look bad to voters. This is why Republicans are just talking no action.

This is just another political re-election strategy move by Obama to help him get re-elected.

His base liberals (progressives) are delighted
Average moderate voters either don't care or think he is helping them with this agency
Republicans are mad about it, but they won't do anything they wouldn't anyway.

Still waiting for a (congressional) Republican counter political strategy. Them just complaining about this with no effective plan of action is a waste of time and what Obama is counting on.

8 posted on 01/05/2012 12:30:57 AM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.)”

If he will make a big issue of this, and take it to court, it will go a long way to redeeming himself.

Just sayin’...


9 posted on 01/05/2012 12:35:29 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Everything about Obama is an attack on the Constitution so what are you guys going to do about him Spencer?

Yeah, just what I thought, you're just going to squawk and grumble and let him keep on his path of destruction.

Pfffft!

10 posted on 01/05/2012 12:44:40 AM PST by Bullish (Recovery won't begin until Obama loses HIS job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Richard Cordray as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

All they hire are liberals. Women, minorities, gays, affirmative action. The Federal Gov't is a jobs program for liberals or at least this agency is. I  would love to stroll into an office of this new bureaucratic sinkhole and see who works there

11 posted on 01/05/2012 12:46:26 AM PST by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States...

“Clause 4: 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.”

Boehner didn’t recess the House, and they have been having pro-forma sessions. Congress is NOT in recess, so Obama has violated the Constitution WRT his recess appointments.


12 posted on 01/05/2012 12:47:09 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Sorry...forgot the link. ;o)

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html


13 posted on 01/05/2012 12:48:03 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bullish

This is a blatant violation of the Constitution, and I highly suspect that something will be done about it.


14 posted on 01/05/2012 12:50:03 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

Well, I sure won’t be holding my breath waiting for the Republicans to hold him to any Constitutional standards. They certainly haven’t set any precedent in that regard now have they?


15 posted on 01/05/2012 12:56:23 AM PST by Bullish (Recovery won't begin until Obama loses HIS job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; mkjessup; Gilbo_3; ...
RE :”Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States...“Clause 4: 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.” Boehner didn’t recess the House, and they have been having pro-forma sessions. Congress is NOT in recess, so Obama has violated the Constitution WRT his recess appointments.”

That's all well known.
But as I pointed out a lawsuit can't be filed without a plaintiff having ‘standing’ or it will get thrown out. So that means waiting until someone is harmed by this new agency. But that might be a credit card company or mortgage bank trying to charge fees or foreclose. Politically that would help Obama get re-elected with the case not being decided until after the election.

That is why Republicans are just talking not doing anything. The Republican party really is the clueless party.

16 posted on 01/05/2012 1:08:03 AM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

“This is a blatant violation of the Constitution, and I highly suspect that something will be done about it.”

I wish I was that optimistic.


17 posted on 01/05/2012 2:12:18 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Need to ask them, “So, What does Congress need to do to never be in recess?”


18 posted on 01/05/2012 2:24:25 AM PST by SMGFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Ask them “Would it be unConstitutional for GOP to declare never to go on recess, thereby denying the president a right to recess appoint?”


19 posted on 01/05/2012 2:27:22 AM PST by SMGFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Bitching about it is one thing, doing something about it is another.

If the republicans don’t jump on this quick and actually do something vice talkking about it, it means nothing.

Personally, I wake up every morning hoping Obama has a vision, thinks he’s Jim Jones and pull a Jonestown with his administration.


20 posted on 01/05/2012 2:36:13 AM PST by maddog55 (OBAMA: Why stupid people shouldn't vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
It's the line about Bauchus not calling for a legal challenge from Congress that bothers me.

Congress could go directly to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

-PJ

21 posted on 01/05/2012 2:43:03 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Any confidence in McConnel or Boehner?
Hell NO.
Couple of eunichs.


22 posted on 01/05/2012 3:06:54 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) You'd be mad as hell to if you were married to that wookie bitch little fag that he is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
The Congress gave the POTUS this power and the Congress will have to take it away. Too many presidents on either side of the aisle have abused their authority, not just zero.

Yeah, I remember the cheers here FR when Bush did it...

23 posted on 01/05/2012 3:22:13 AM PST by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Then do something about it. File hundreds of court challenges and at least get a temporary injunction.
24 posted on 01/05/2012 3:41:16 AM PST by tobyhill (Obama, The Biggest Thief In American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

Let’s be very clear — No President in my lifetime has shown the contempt for Our Constitution and Way of life that this guy and his Party have made manifest these past three years.
Yet Congress— the House has NOT yet considered IMPEACHMENT?
Perhaps they are too busy leaning against the wall.(the one that has divided this nation against itself -erected in 1947 by Court mandate) Perhaps they are already dhimmi?


25 posted on 01/05/2012 5:48:21 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Obama’s starting to look like a bully.


26 posted on 01/05/2012 8:17:26 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrats are using immigration deliberately to change the electorate.. Freeper Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy

Were Bush recess appointments allowed to do through during Dingy Harry’s pro forma sessions?


27 posted on 01/05/2012 4:39:31 PM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Bush didn’t make any appointments when the Dems held their “pro forma” sessions.

All his recess appointments were made when Congress was officially in recess.


28 posted on 01/05/2012 4:46:22 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

Too bad, it sounds like he would have gotten away with it.


29 posted on 01/05/2012 4:57:24 PM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

We have to face it. Obama and his enablers are rats seeking holes in our Constitution and laws i.e. change. It also shows how stupid/naive elected representatives can be. The really concerned ones still don’t understand that to stop a stampede of wild/evil people you have get in front of them. Anticipating what the Obama crowd might pull off is part of the game our representatives should be handling.


30 posted on 01/05/2012 5:31:09 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impy
Too bad, it sounds like he would have gotten away with it.

No, the howl from the MSM and the left would have been deafening for weeks on end. SEIU, Acorn, Code Pink, and a thousand other liberal organizations would have protested immediately. He might have been able to get away with it, but the political price would have been too high. Obama doesn't have to worry about any of that.

Bush wouldn't do it anyway, he actually has respect for our Constitution IMHO.

31 posted on 01/05/2012 6:11:33 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Good points.

Politically (and “public relationswise”) this needs to be addressed in the Senate as an abuse of power and an affront to that body.

Not by all Republicans as a group but by one as an individual- one Senator refusing “unanimous consent” until the Senate took up and dealt with the issue.

One of the RINO girls from Maine could make an historic name for herself.


32 posted on 01/05/2012 6:24:11 PM PST by mrsmith (Start electing a 'Tea Party' House Speaker in 2012 now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
"Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States...

. “Clause 4: 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.”

Boehner didn’t recess the House, and they have been having pro-forma sessions. Congress is NOT in recess, so Obama has violated the Constitution WRT his recess appointments."

You are concerned with obama violating the Constitution?

Obama himself is a violation of the Constitution WRT:

Article 2, Section 1 Clause 5:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

33 posted on 01/05/2012 6:25:29 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Impy; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; mkjessup; Gilbo_3; NFHale
RE :”Were Bush recess appointments allowed to do through during Dingy Harry’s pro forma sessions?

Bush's version of that was the bill signing statements(dems were crying ‘Dictator’ and ‘unconstitutional’ over those at the time) , which Obama promised not to do and now he is doing them himself for the same reason as he did this, for political reasons.

I am telling you that this issue is going no place for Republicans unless the new agency does something that really draws negative attention to itself that Republicans can use against Obama, maybe like the national labor relations board going after Boeing SC plant did with NLRB.

The agency will (this year) cherry pick cases that look like they are helping the little guy voter to fight the big bad greedy bankers, and Obama is working that into his “Republicans only care about the millionaires and billionaires “ act he used to win the FICA battle.

And it is going no-where in the courts because unlike Obama-care in this case the courts will demand a plaintiff with standing to even look at it which means someone who lost something due to the agencies actions, yep, that greedy banker as Obama will portray it. Then you got the problem that the US constitution doesn't define 'recess'.

The FICA extension battle comes up again soon, Are congressional Republicans going to try to look stupid again or do they actually have a plan this time to put Obama on the defensive? This is turning out even worse than I thought it would.

34 posted on 01/05/2012 8:28:00 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bullish; sickoflibs

I won’t hold my breath thinking that any politician will hold Obama’s feet to the fire, either.

McConnell is dead to me if he doesn’t do something about this. Boehner has done his best by keeping Congress open.

The Chamber of Commerce is considering a lawsuit.

In any case, it will take time for this to come to fruition, and I think it’s going to take some entity other than Congress to get the court’s attention.

Although, the best entity to sue would be Congress.

The good thing is that we do have the Constitution, and it’s as plain as day what is said there.


35 posted on 01/06/2012 12:17:16 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Sometimes good things happen.

~Pollyanna

;o)

Give it some time. This just happened yesterday. There are people looking into their options.


36 posted on 01/06/2012 12:19:38 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000; Bullish
RE :”In any case, it will take time for this to come to fruition, and I think it’s going to take some entity other than Congress to get the court’s attention. Although, the best entity to sue would be Congress. The good thing is that we do have the Constitution, and it’s as plain as day what is said there.

I am much more pessimistic than you about Republicans chances and ability to do anything about this, including turn it into a negative for Obama. This is just a part of his re-election theme about not waiting for congress to act on ' helping the middle class'.

As has been pointed out here the US constitution doesn't define specifically what ‘congressional recess’ means. Obama(and Democrats) say it was 'in recess', congressional Republicans says it wasn't. The courts don't like to get involved with procedural disagreements between congress and the WH.

37 posted on 01/06/2012 5:23:47 AM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
"The good thing is that we do have the Constitution, and it’s as plain as day what is said there.

Obama is proof that you are mistaken.

The Constitution has been ignored by both political parties, and the majority of Freepers and many Conservatives just shrug it off.

Shameful.

38 posted on 01/06/2012 7:34:17 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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