• 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.

Given that the CFPB is tasked with protecting the rights of consumers in financial transactions generally involving banks ... yeah -- pretty much. Who do you think it was that spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying against the CFPB? Hint: it wasn't consumers.

The CFPB is tasked with the regulation of NON-banking institutions.
 
Okay, if that's what you're saying. But that's debatable.
The very fact that you say it is debatable shows just how far we have damaged the Constitution.

Sure it does. If you're saving a good company from a short-term crisis, it makes lots of sense. And the results are beginning to show.
No. It doesn't. This tossed out decades of standing bankruptcy law. The Executive branch bullied the courts into setting aside the bond holders' claims and gave a higher standing to the unions. This was very bad assuming we are still a nation of laws.
 
Me too, which is why I wouldn't do this for any old company any old time.
Why not? Once you have breached the Constitution why not do whatever you want? Do what benefits your friends. Do what fills your campaign coffers. Be corrupt.

Well, no, often bankruptcy means the business doesn't continue at all.
As it should be. They failed. There should be consequences for owners, not taxpayers.

The new owners get some old factories and equipment, along with lots of liabilities.
This is nonsense.

Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.[/QUOTE]
True. But so what? Does this mean that as long as there is a politician willing to back it the taxpayers will be on the hook to make good any company's failure? This is reasonably for a dictatorship. It is very bad news for a representative republic.
 
Me too, which is why I wouldn't do this for any old company any old time.



Well, no, often bankruptcy means the business doesn't continue at all. The new owners get some old factories and equipment, along with lots of liabilities. Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.


Seems that I have read somewhere that the government loaned Chrysler $1.5 billion in 1979, not only did they pay back the loan but the Treasury was $350 million richer.
 
The very fact that you say it is debatable shows just how far we have damaged the Constitution.

Yes, yes, you're the unquestioned authority and nobody can even possibly have a different opinion.

No. It doesn't. This tossed out decades of standing bankruptcy law. The Executive branch bullied the courts into setting aside the bond holders' claims and gave a higher standing to the unions. This was very bad assuming we are still a nation of laws.

I was responding to whether it makes economic sense.
 
Seems that I have read somewhere that the government loaned Chrysler $1.5 billion in 1979, not only did they pay back the loan but the Treasury was $350 million richer.

Yep, I remember that.
 
Why not? Once you have breached the Constitution why not do whatever you want? Do what benefits your friends. Do what fills your campaign coffers. Be corrupt.

Pious baloney. If you think it's unconstitutional, just say so.

As it should be. They failed. There should be consequences for owners, not taxpayers.

Two points 1) the taxpayers should get paid back, with interest (yes, with a risk that they won't), 2) the taxpayers would lose ALOT if GM were allowed to fail.

This is nonsense.

Thousands lose their jobs and the tax revenue from the company disappears. That's what was likely to happen to GM. If a company is failing, it's failing, and bankruptcy doesn't necessarily save it.

That's what I was saying. And now you're agreeing with me.

On the other hand, it is true that bankruptcy sometimes saves a company instead of killing it.
True. But so what? Does this mean that as long as there is a politician willing to back it the taxpayers will be on the hook to make good any company's failure? This is reasonably for a dictatorship. It is very bad news for a representative republic.[/QUOTE]
 
Yes, yes, you're the unquestioned authority and nobody can even possibly have a different opinion.
I am not objecting to your different opinion. Please feel free to believe whatever you wish. Either way you cannot escape the consequences.


I was responding to whether it makes economic sense.
Yes. I know. I disagree with you. We used to be a nation of laws. The economic chaos this creates is enormous. Will bondholders pay a premium for bonds given the government's dismissal of their lawful claims?
 
You don't get it. Republicans filibustered the nomination when it came out of committee.

Senate Republicans Block Cordray for CFPB - Bloomberg


So what? Then the standard is to get enough votes to get passed that right? Obama doesn't get to ignore the constitution, or the Senate rules because it's too hard...Obama in fact in '10 affirmed that he understood and would uphold the pro forma sessions by not putting forth recess appointments. Then we have this....

j-mac
 
Pious baloney. If you think it's unconstitutional, just say so.
It is outside of the Constitution.

Two points 1) the taxpayers should get paid back, with interest (yes, with a risk that they won't), 2) the taxpayers would lose ALOT if GM were allowed to fail.
Number one) when should I expect my refund check for my share? Number two) why would the taxpayer be on the hook for any company's bankruptcy? Isn't the real issue that our Dear Leader, the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama, wanted to give money to his base, union members and their thug leaders?
 
Absolutely. It may not be the RNC that files the suit. But, because of the language of the law, the first decision that the CFPB makes under Cordray, it will be immediately challenged in court.

j-mac

actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.
 
actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.

Does the law permit the Senate to refuse to submit the nomination to an up or down vote, thus thwarting the intent of the law?
 
Does the law permit the Senate to refuse to submit the nomination to an up or down vote, thus thwarting the intent of the law?


What the hell? You can't just make it up as you go along Adam. The Senate has rules, and as recent as 2010 the Obama administration stated that they would adhere to the rule of the pro forma session as legitimate. You may not like that Congress was blocking Cordray, and the NLRB nominees legally, but you can't just toss it out the window for that reason. What you are arguing is that Obama should be able to go around the Constitution, and Congress if he can't get his way...That is Bull.



j-mac
 
actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.

Absolutely, and that is why I was saying that if the repubs in congress don't act, businesses under this fiat appointment reminiscent of a banana republic will.

j-mac
 
What the hell? You can't just make it up as you go along Adam.

The irony of YOU posting that.

The Senate has rules, and as recent as 2010 the Obama administration stated that they would adhere to the rule of the pro forma session as legitimate.

Could you post that statement please, with a link? Thanks.
 
cpwill said:
actually the law requires that the post be filled with senate approval. not just the Constitution - but the statute establishing the post itself.
Read the rest, it continues by saying that the post will be filled..."in accordance with section 1011".

Section 1011 says..."(2) APPOINTMENT.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate".

Which brings you back to the Constitution and recess appointments.


Here's the Congressional Research Services’ May 2011 report on the subject.

Although the CFP Act requires the CFPB Director to be confirmed by the Senate, the President could appoint a Director temporarily without Senate confirmation through his constitutionally provided power to make recess appointments. See U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 3 (“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”). A recess-appointed Director likely would be considered to have all of the authorities that would be held by a Senate-confirmed Director. CRS Report RL33009, Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview, by Vivian S. Chu.
 
Back
Top Bottom