• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

May turn out to be a clever political powerplay by Obama. But the reality is that it was nothing more or less than a "clever powerplay by Obama"

Whose doing the power play again...the President using a recess appointment or a minority in the senate that want to use the appointment process to change legislation..........
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

How to put this.

When an agency of this type has a director that is not held accountable to anyone but one person (the president) the potential for abuse is high.

When an agency has a board each of the members must agree to any policy that is enacted. This puts a check on abusive policies. (not saying it can't be done...just that it is harder...just like our Congress/Senate) Unlike when there is a director who can pass policies when ever he/she feels like it. Having a board also creates less of a chance that someone will be bribed. (not saying it can't be done...just that it is harder)

Okay, that may be true. But it's not like we don't have plenty of agencies and departments run by just one appointee at the top, and we don't worry about them being unaccountable.

The other part of the accountability that was wanted (the part that you ignored) was that Congress funds it instead of the Federal Reserve. This makes them beholden to the People far more than say a President in his last term of office.

No, more beholden to Congress. There's a reason the Fed isn't very "accountable" and maybe that's not a bad thing sometimes.
 
so, following the rules of the Senate & the Democratic process set up by our Founding Fathers, the GOP doesn't have enough votes to kill or drastically ammend this new agency?

The rules of the Senate also say that a Recess appointment can not be made while the house or senate are in session too, that means pro forma sessions as well...How dare you cite 'The founding fathers' as you spit all over their graves. As for creating this "new agency" Obama and the demo's answer to the people, or at least should. He is not a King, or dictator even though many of you progressives think he should be.

tough luck. that doesn't justify abusing the Filibuster rule or having 5-minute Senatorial sessions to make believe the Senate isn't on vacation, in order to prevent any Recess Appointments.

Oh, but it does. See the demo's used it when it suited them, and was considered a 'nuclear option' for Bush to do what King Barry did, but since King Barry needs a fight in order to deflect the lemmings away from looking at his record he just went straight there...Seems awful desperate to me.

Health care, this debacle now headed to the courts, seems like a perfect **** storm for Barry coming right in the middle of his campaign...Thanks demo's for screwing up my country!:doh

j-mac
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Okay, that may be true. But it's not like we don't have plenty of agencies and departments run by just one appointee at the top, and we don't worry about them being unaccountable.


Oh my Freakin' GAWD! you can NOT be serious here....

In early December, three pieces of legislation passed in the House putting federal regulators on notice. The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 (H.R. 527) passed on December 1 and focused on the impact that rules have on small entities. The next day the House passed the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010) which requires more thorough and more transparent examination of proposed rules before they are adopted. The most sweeping of the regulatory reforms was the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011 (H.R. 10). It passed on December 7 and strips power from unaccountable bureaucrats to enact burdensome regulations with an annual economic impact of $100M or more.

Each has been referred in the Senate where hopes for passage are dim. President Obama has threatened to veto all three.

The House votes largely went down party lines. Twenty-eight Democrats joined all voting Republicans in support of H.R. 527. Only 19 Democrats voted “Aye” on H.R. 3010 and a mere five voted for REINS.

Congressman Ben Chandler (D, Ky-6) voted reliably with his party on H.R. 3010 and REINS, and in support of three labor-backed, Democrat-sponsored amendments which would have weakened H.R. 527.

“It is unconscionable that at a time when the labor force is shrinking and more than 13 million Americans are still looking for work, Ben Chandler continues to oppose sensible regulatory reform, like the REINS Act, which would give Congress the ability to protect the American people from job killing regulations,” said Andy Barr, the 2012 Republican candidate for Congress in Kentucky’s Sixth Congressional District.

Barr, a part-time instructor of Constitutional Law, also noted that the REINS Act would reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine, a corollary to the separation of powers doctrine, which prohibits Congress from delegating unfettered legislative authority to the Executive Branch.

Chandler’s opposition to H.R. 3010 is particularly interesting in light of his role as chair of the Blue Dog Coalition’s Task Force on Oversight and Regulatory Review. According to the Task Force’s website, it “examines the thousands of regulations issued annually by the federal government with the objective of identifying those that are overly burdensome and modifying rules problematic to job creation.” It focuses on 12 independent federal agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. If enacted, H.R. 3010 would, among other things, subject the independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to the same rulemaking required of executive branch agencies.

The Administration shows no signs of slowing down on job-killing over-regulation. According to the White House, 144 pending major rules are expected soon to cost at least $100 million annually. Rather than standing against the rising burden of regula



So the demo's, together with Unions are working against Business in order to impose the highest amount of job killing regulation since the Great Depression.

Some 88,000 new pages of regulation were instituted in 2011 by unaccountable political hacks for Obama. Not all of them were targeted at "big business", as we see here in this story, many were targeted at individuals...Welcome to the Obama future people:

Nobody Knows How Many Federal Regulations Carry Criminal Penalties | The Lonely Conservative


j-mac
 
Yes there was! Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren was never nominated for appointment.

While it is true, she helped design the whole department, on July 18th she was kicked to the curb during a "Personnel announcement" by Pres B.O. naming former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to take the helm at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from Elizabeth Warren. Take that as a nomination, thats fine...counts close enough to consider that as truth.

The other two - Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, the two appointed to the NLRB dont even appear on the White Houses own nomination sheet until December 15, 2011.....Congress more accurately The Senate adjourned for the year – but did not go into an official recess — on the following day, giving the senate a whole 2 days to do everything needed and have a vote.

Thats not stalling...they dont set the agenda in the Senate, the Democrats do...Harry Reid specifically. Why not ask him why HE didnt schedule these two for confirmation or why HE didnt schedule a confirmation hearing on Cordray.

Carney added that though Obama did not give Congress a chance to act, Obama wanted to pre-empt the Senate.

NLRB | Recess Appointments Sharon Block | Richard Griffin | The Daily Caller

Refusing to allow the Constitutional process to follow its preset, predetermined path is abuse of power and a complete disregard for the Constitution. Bush did his fair share of pushing the Constitution and breaking it in a few places, but to outright disregard the Constitution and boast about doing so....thats abuse of power.
 
From my point of view, Obama is working with an obstructionist Republican, legislative branch.


It is NOT a Republican Legislative branch, it is the Senate. Who just happens to be in the control of the Democrats and more specifically Senate Leader Harry Reid.

So you need to start asking WHY Harry Reid wont call for a vote. Let the Republicans all vote no if they choose....it wont stop the confirmation of the nominee, the Senate only needs 51 votes to pass, the Democrats have that all by them selves.


But instead of looking at reality, just keep bashing the other side.
 
Good post. And nice summary by Hatch on the issues/concerns surrounding the new bureau.

One can agree or disagree with the specific items Hatch lists in the article. But the point is that there were some genuine elements of disagreement between the two parties regarding the structure of this new agency. The courts will determine if Obama's political maneuver was legal, but in the mean time the efforts by the Left to portray this as some altruistic action by Obama to "protect the American people" is very misguided.

May turn out to be a clever political powerplay by Obama. But the reality is that it was nothing more or less than a "clever powerplay by Obama"


That's not really a relevant point, is it, C. Differences of opinion in organization are properly addressed in the legislative process, not by refusing to confirm anyone to a lawfully created agency, b/c you want to kill the agency and couldn't muster up the votes to do so legislatively.
 
Not sure how would work. Reid controls the Senate and he wasn't going to allow any such legislation to move forward. And Obama sure as hell wasn't going to sign anything that undermined his own expansion of power.


(Help me out here....??)


Right, so, the GOP made their case .... AND LOST.

So, naturally, the next thing to do is throw a tantrum and refuse to carry out your constitional duties because you're really really pissed that you didn't win the debate, legislatively.
 
The GOP simply does not have the votes to kill the new agency, or even severely change it. That said, they should simply try to get more votes to do this in the future.

But abusing the filibuster rule & the recess rules to prevent the new agency from having a Director, is shameful and a disgrace.

Obama, has finally chosen to stand up to the GOP and has shown he actually has balls. Good for you, Mr. President.
 
When did Democrats filibuster a nominee because they opposed the AGENCY that the person was nominated for? If you can't find an example that your post is gibberish.

Uhm, Dems are big government, they have never seen a new government agency they didn't like. Whats the point of this post?

The agency structure defies congressional oversight of executive agencies. It has none. I would expect Dodd/Frank would get a kick in the pants if this atrocity agency were ever challenged on rulings. There are ways to reform commercial banking and other areas without creating a super agency that can step around the legislative body and existing laws to do so.

The EPA is already doing enough of that, thanks. :roll:
 
Last edited:
...So you need to start asking WHY Harry Reid wont call for a vote. Let the Republicans all vote no if they choose....it wont stop the confirmation of the nominee, the Senate only needs 51 votes to pass, the Democrats have that all by them selves....

wait, so you're saying Reid won't allow an up or down vote on this person?
 
That's not really a relevant point, is it, C. Differences of opinion in organization are properly addressed in the legislative process, not by refusing to confirm anyone to a lawfully created agency, b/c you want to kill the agency and couldn't muster up the votes to do so legislatively.

Not so. The political process does not begin and end at some door. Further, in order to get the Dodd-Frank bill passed, it specifically included language that retained for the Senate this exact power of confirmation. It had these exact strings attached when it was signed. That the President was potentially going to have to face further negotiations with the Senate was not assumed, it was written in the bill.

The President has now usurped the system, in an Unconstitutional power grab, specifically in contravention of the Bill, the recognized and established protocols, and the prior arguments of his own Solicitor General before SCOTUS.
 
Not so. The political process does not begin and end at some door. Further, in order to get the Dodd-Frank bill passed, it specifically included language that retained for the Senate this exact power of confirmation. It had these exact strings attached when it was signed. That the President was potentially going to have to face further negotiations with the Senate was not assumed, it was written in the bill.

The President has now usurped the system, in an Unconstitutional power grab, specifically in contravention of the Bill, the recognized and established protocols, and the prior arguments of his own Solicitor General before SCOTUS.

What is not so? That a lawfully created agency should be killed via the legislative process and not by one party refusing to perform its constitutional duties to advise and consent?


THAT'S hilarious. You know, the more I read about the righty objections to this appointment in the face of a pro forma session, the more I like it. EXCELLENT fight to pick. Just ****ing brilliant.


The right is arguing that they really REALLY should be able to do an end run around the legislative process to kill an agency that will protect consumers. Throwing a temper tantrum, to do the bidding of Wall Street to kill an agency Wall Street hates, b/c their stupid obstructionist tactic was thwarted.
 
United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The GOP has filibustered a final vote. They would filibuster a vote for anyone, thereby preventing the new agency from functioning.

If the GOP is gonna play such a dispicable & pathetic game, Obama has no choice but to make a Recess Appointment.

He really did have no choice, but it remains fascinating to me that he chose to do it the way he did, instead of slipping it in between sessions in the few seconds between when the last congress ended and the new one opened.
 
In this country, laws are passed by a majority of the House and the Senate. Currently, the Republicans do not have enough votes to pass anything without the help of Democrats in the Senate. That is the way it is.

So instead, the GOP has decided to abuse our Senatorial rules & regulations, to have their way without relying on democracy and the 51% vote rule.

If anyone has created a Constitutional crisis...it is the Republican Party, due to their total disrespect for our democracy and legislative rules.

I hope the GOP keeps pushing this, so that more Americans can see what the Republicans are actually doing, and see the TRUE FACE of the Grand Old Party: that of dishonesty, trickery, and deceit.
 
Last edited:
What is not so? That a lawfully created agency should be killed via the legislative process and not by one party refusing to perform its constitutional duties to advise and consent?


THAT'S hilarious. You know, the more I read about the righty objections to this appointment in the face of a pro forma session, the more I like it. EXCELLENT fight to pick. Just ****ing brilliant.


The right is arguing that they really REALLY should be able to do an end run around the legislative process to kill an agency that will protect consumers. Throwing a temper tantrum, to do the bidding of Wall Street to kill an agency Wall Street hates, b/c their stupid obstructionist tactic was thwarted.

LOL .... except, and as noted several times in the thread, the GOP laid out its specific issues, none of which would have killed the department, and most of which are heavily endorsed by the GOP rank and file, which won big Nov 2010 ;)

Now, it is one more election issue for November, although it will not be a major one. The damage done here is longer term. Any President who wants to ignore advise and consent now can. Think back to Bush filling every single vacancy, and saying "**** you" to the Democrats with every signature. That is now your future, just won't be Bush is all.
 
Last edited:
That's not really a relevant point, is it, C. Differences of opinion in organization are properly addressed in the legislative process, not by refusing to confirm anyone to a lawfully created agency, b/c you want to kill the agency and couldn't muster up the votes to do so legislatively.


Well, not so fast...

If the CFPB tries to issue new mandates and regulations, they will be open to numerous challenges because of the flawed appointment of its first director, especially given the central role the director plays in the bureau becoming an independent agency, he said.

“The Constitution ensures accountability and transparency of agencies, and there would be several grounds for the CFPB to be challenged,” he said.

“President said today he wants to increase accountability in the private sector, but he wants to weaken accountability in the government sector, but that won’t work,” he said.

A Senate staffer, who have been close to the workings of the Cordray nomination, said, “Under the Dodd-Frank Act, it is clear that the CFPB's powers to regulate non-banks, its ‘new’ powers, are activated upon Senate confirmation -- not recess appointment -- of a Director.”


Portman: Cordray Appointment Will Not Change CFPB - HUMAN EVENTS

Obama may have rendered this "agency" void.

j-mac
 
LOL .... except, and as noted several times in the thread, the GOP laid out its specific issues, none of which would have killed the department,...

they want the agency to have no damn director, for one thing.

well, if they really want that...then convince enough Senators & Congressmen to vote that way.

if you don't have the votes, then you have lost. however, the GOP plays by different rules.
 
they want the agency to have no damn director, for one thing.

well, if they really want that...then convince enough Senators & Congressmen to vote that way.

if you don't have the votes, then you have lost. however, the GOP plays by different rules.

You know, "progressive" can be as in to get progressively slower ;)

They played by Reid's rules. And Obama's rules. Its the liberal who always change the rules. Now, with the next time there is a GOP President, and a GOP Senate, which could be in less than 13 months, you realize that you cannot stop a single Federal Judge from being appointed, except SCOTUS, and then only by votes you will not have. All of Harry Reid's obstructions are gone. Buh-bye !
 
they want the agency to have no damn director, for one thing.

well, if they really want that...then convince enough Senators & Congressmen to vote that way.

if you don't have the votes, then you have lost. however, the GOP plays by different rules.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean that you get to wad up the Constitution and toss it in the trash so that you get what you want....

j-mac
 
You know, "progressive" can be as in to get progressively slower ;)

They played by Reid's rules. And Obama's rules. Its the liberal who always change the rules. Now, with the next time there is a GOP President, and a GOP Senate, which could be in less than 13 months, you realize that you cannot stop a single Federal Judge from being appointed, except SCOTUS, and then only by votes you will not have. All of Harry Reid's obstructions are gone. Buh-bye !

10-4 on that....In about 12 months from now when sanity is restored, and repubs start doing what demo's have been doing, I don't want to see a single post deriding it from a lib....

j-mac
 
Sorry, but that doesn't mean that you get to wad up the Constitution and toss it in the trash so that you get what you want....

you are correct, and that is exactly what the Republicans have done.

they have turned the Constitution into tiolet paper. They have turned the Senate into an off-off-Broadway show. A very bad one.
 
10-4 on that....In about 12 months from now when sanity is restored, and repubs start doing what demo's have been doing, I don't want to see a single post deriding it from a lib....

j-mac

oh, so you expect the Democrats to filibuster every single bill the GOP tries to make law?

you expect the Democrats to filibuster every judicial nominee?

you expect the Democrats to make believe they are in session when they are really off for the winter, in order to prevent an entire Federal agency from functioning?
 
Back
Top Bottom