Thursday, January 12, 2012

Obama's Illegal Appointments And The End Of "Advise and Consent."

Obama's illegal appointments will create havoc with the appointment process. If they are allowed to stand, the President, whoever it happens to be from this day forward, will be able to "declare" congress to be in recess for the purpose of bypassing the constitutional requirements of advise and consent.

See: Manhattan Moment: Expressly illegal 'appointment' violates Obama's oath
The president cannot require Congress to act on his priorities. To the contrary, Congress acts independently of the president as a check and balance to his power.

Obama's view that he may decide when the Senate has gone into recess virtually nullifies the Senate's advice and consent role. Under this rationale, what would stop the president from declaring recesses every weekend so that he can make unilateral appointments?
Precedent is a bitch. If this abomination is not slapped down now, there will be no stopping any future President from using it.

Any-time that the Senate or the House goes quite for short holidays and weekends will become an opportunity for an opportunistic President to make a "Recess Appointment."

So what will voters do about this in November? Will they reward Obama and his enablers in the Democrat Party by returning them to office?

Ultimately it is we the voters that are the last line of defence of the constitution.

It is up to us.

Vote them out.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Obama and the politics of "what you can get away with."

See: VERNUCCIO: No time for advice and consent
In a press release, Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee, stated, “The president has ignored the Senate’s confirmation and vetting process” by appointing Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin.

As Mr. Enzi rightly noted, the president’s submission of the nominations at the last minute made it impossible for the Senate even to begin its vetting process. The process includes a background check to see if the nominees’ taxes are paid, if they are facing any pending civil or criminal investigations and to ensure that they face no conflicts of interest.

For Obama and the Democrats, the constitution is a "flawed document" and means nothing. For them, all politics can be boiled down to "what you can get away with."

Obama and the Democrats think that at this time, they can get away with making "recess appointments" even if the congress is not in recess.

From this point forward, any-time that there are not people on the floor of both the house and senate, yammering away on something, future presidents will be able to declare congress to be in "recess" and appoint their people to office. The day or the hour won't matter. Weekends and holidays will become defacto recesses.

That is, if they are allowed to get away with this.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Obama trashes the Constitution.

Art. I §5 cl.4 of the U.S. Constitution.
"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."

From: Obama’s recess appointments are unconstitutional
Yes, some prior recess appointments have been politically unpopular, and a few have even raised legal questions. But never before has a president purported to make a “recess” appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess. That is a constitutional abuse of a high order.

From: Is Obama's appointment of Cordray illegal?
While this type of recess appointment is a common action for presidents, this one is fuelling a lot of argument because the Senate was technically still in session. The GOP senators, fearing Mr. Obama would do this, had been holding pro-forma sessions (pretend sessions where the Senate is called into session but no work is done). Senate Democrats used the same tactic during President Bush's administration.

These "sessions" are held every third day because traditionally Congress has had to be out of session for at least that period of time before a president can make a recess appointment. Cordray's is the first such appointment during a Senate break of fewer than three days since 1949.

From: When Is A Recess Appointment Not Really A Recess Appointment?
But Obama is the first President to make a recess appointment during a pro forma session. And business groups are now threatening legal actions to block the appointment.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Damn the constitution! Full Steam Ahead!

From the illegally appointed Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Standing Up for Consumers

By John Cordray, Reader Supported News

05 January 12

Today, I was appointed by President Obama to serve as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I am honored by this opportunity to continue my work on behalf of consumers. And I am energized by the responsibilities and challenges facing the Bureau.

He is a true believer.

The appointment of John Cordray is illegal on two counts.

1) Obama declared this "a recess" appointment. Congress was not in recess. Obama is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts. He can not make this "a recess appointment" by just declaring it so. Congress has to actually be in recess in order for Obama to lawfully make a recess appointment.

2) The Frank-Dodd act, which created this unnecessary office, specifically requires that the appointee be approved by the senate. It is a weird little oddity in the legislation that is most likely due to sloppy legal work on the part of the legislations drafters. But it is there none the less. The Frank-Dodd act does not allow for recess appointment.

More importantly the “recess” appointment of Cordray doesn’t solve the President’s problem. The Dodd-Frank Act is very clear, even a law professor can probably understand this section, that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is “confirmed by the Senate”. A recess appointment is not a Senate confirmation. Now don’t ask me why Dodd and Frank included such unusual language, they could have just given the Bureau the new authorities, but they didn’t. So even with this appointment, the CFPB won’t be able to go after all those non-banks, like the pay-day lenders and check-cashiers that caused the financial crisis (oh wait, those industries didn’t have anything to do with the crisis).
(Emphasis is mine - Syrah)


Obama’s Constitutional Gamble on Consumer Finance Nomination

Doubling down: Obama follows Cordray recess appointment with three more to NLRB

Obama to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional

Obama Reelection Strategy Seen in Cordray Appointment

Is the Senate in recess? The Constitution says no.

Obama Oversteps His Limits with Cordray Recess Appointment

Cordray's Recess Appointment Sure Doesn't Look Constitutional To Me