• 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.

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Cole said:
The appointment of Cordroy really has little or nothing to do with "keeping the government running".
Click to expand...

So his appointment was meaningless and unnecessary in the first place?
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
Yet, we are supposed to then put faith in such as a Czar again ? Which is less transparent ? You do not fix broken government by adding more broken, and now less accountable, government.
Click to expand...

Making an agency answerable to Congress doesn't make them "more accountable" if the agency's job is to keep corporate abuses in check, it makes them less accountable. It would be unable to do anything about corporate abuses.

Eighty Deuce said:
How did using the NLRB to harass Boeing work out ? That was one huge use of an agency solely for political gain. And how about our own DoJ and Fast and Furious ?
Click to expand...

Ah Fox News... Always good for a laugh. But, yeah, those are just Fox sensationalism of course.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
An ELECTED one. In other words, actually accountable.

The GOP wants to weaken or kill this agency, and they'll use any excuse to do it.
Click to expand...

So make it to where each member of the board must be chosen in the same way presidential appointies are chosen. Presidents chooses an appointee, Congress agree's/rejects.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
Of course it would be accountable to Congress. Congress could overturn any of its decisions or even abolish it. Congress has plenary power.
Click to expand...


Not familiar with plenary power. But would put forward that your premise may be more theory than reality. Suspect that in the current state of Washington, the Democrats in Congress can shield the CFPB from any restraint the GOP may try to place on it.

Potentially Obama has himself another one of those czar thingy's......:nails
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

teamosil said:
Making an agency answerable to Congress doesn't make them "more accountable" if the agency's job is to keep corporate abuses in check, it makes them less accountable. It would be unable to do anything about corporate abuses.
Click to expand...

Bullchit. How many agencies have so much power residing in one entity ? Not elected ? Not beholden to Congress ? Try "0".


Ah Fox News... Always good for a laugh. But, yeah, those are just Fox sensationalism of course.
Click to expand...

With posts like that, you are about a **** hair away from making my Ignore list. Guess that is the best you got here. :roll:
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

I am reminded of an old John Prine lyric, "And all of the news just repeats itself. Like some forgotten dream."

It just seems like yesterday when President Bush, I believe, made some political appointments using tactics deemed underhanded and shifty by the left. Or am I worng? Could it have been another president in recent history?

So, I guess my question is, is the news really repeating itself or did I just forget a dream I had that makes all this appointment stuff sound really deja-vu-'ish?

Guess folks aren't really that much different after all.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

ARealConservative said:
Not correct. They will always have the power to remove via impeachment.

The primary point I was making is recess appointments are powers vested in the president, but they are not granted the same length of duty as appointments approved in session, hence no power grab doing a recess appointment.
Click to expand...

Read the link I provided it explains the whole process.

Secondly, they just cant impeach the appointee just for the sake, they would have had to break laws to be impeached.

Lastly, this IS a power grab and an end around Congressional power. HE and Bush are/were power mongers and Presidents that pushed the Constitution to its limits (in my opinion shattering it completely on some issues).

Even the President admits that if Congress says "NO" he wont accept that and he will do what he wants....thats not a President that is a Dictator.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Thunder said:
exactly. what the GOP was doing in the Senate was perfectly legal. as was Obama's move.

however, I would argue that the proper and responsible way to express displeasure with a new agency, is try to muster the votes to either kill the agency or defund it.

if you can't get enough votes to do that...then you should work towards that goal and not try to use parliamentary tricks to get your way.
Click to expand...

Seems you are noting one of the concerns/issue at hand. Congress can't defund something that they never funded in the first place.....eh?
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
How did using the NLRB to harass Boeing work out ? That was one huge use of an agency solely for political gain.
Click to expand...

Dont forget to add payback for campaign support to the unions.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
Yet, we are supposed to then put faith in such as a Czar again ? Which is less transparent ? You do not fix broken government by adding more broken, and now less accountable, government.

How did using the NLRB to harass Boeing work out ? That was one huge use of an agency solely for political gain. And how about our own DoJ and Fast and Furious ?

Our system is for Representative government, not Czars. We just got screwed worse. BOHICA.
Click to expand...
you should ask wichita how things worked out:
Boeing Betrays Wichita After Winning Tanker Deal, Mayor Says - Businessweek
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

TomFitz said:
The Republicans were trying to kill the agency. They wanted a series of changes to the legislation that would have made it so weak, that every banker, businessman or con man with a friend in the US Chamber of Commerce could go to their congressmen and get anything the agency tried to do reversed.

The wanted an agency that would be vulnurable to congressional and lobbyist pressure. Remember that this same group of Republicans are busy trying to undo what little finacial reform has taken place since the crash too.

The Republicans wanted no agency at all, but short of that, they would take one they could bully and emasculate (and spend the next 30 years proposing to do away with).
Click to expand...

So instead of making a transparent agency that is accountable to Congress for its actions, you prefer to leave it as is where it has no accountability to anyone except the Fed Reserve...?
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Kal'Stang said:
So make it to where each member of the board must be chosen in the same way presidential appointies are chosen. Presidents chooses an appointee, Congress agree's/rejects.
Click to expand...

But the claim was that a board of several people would be more accountable somehow.

Why is that any more accountable than doing the same thing with a single appointee?
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
How did using the NLRB to harass Boeing work out ? That was one huge use of an agency solely for political gain.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Nothing came of it. They never even took action. So yeah, it worked out fine.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
Bullchit. How many agencies have so much power residing in one entity ? Not elected ? Not beholden to Congress ? Try "0".
Click to expand...

Hmm, you've got things mixed up. First of all, no agency is supposed to be answering to Congress if it has any executive power at all. That's the separation of powers. It is unconstitutional for Congress to make an agency that executes the law and answers to it instead of the president. So, that would not be "0", but "all".

Congress has some sort of informal oversight over a lot of agencies where they make them come in for hearings and Congress issues statements and whatnot, but they report to the president and do not take orders from Congress.

But, most agencies do answer to the president, which is also a political position of course.

When they really want to enable an agency to aggressively go after corporate abuses, what they do is make it an entirely independent agency so that it isn't even answerable to the president either. Examples of agencies that are independent to allow them to go after corporations include the FTC, FCC, NLRB, NTSB and SEC. They also make independent agencies for other reasons. The FEC is independent because it couldn't really regulate elections if the incumbents had direct control over its actions. The SSA is independent because they wanted to isolate it completely from the general budget.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
But the claim was that a board of several people would be more accountable somehow.

Why is that any more accountable than doing the same thing with a single appointee?
Click to expand...

Seems that the issue of "board vs director" had some significance to Obama. He didn't budge....
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Cole said:
Seems that the issue "board vs director" had some significance to Obama. He didn't budge....
Click to expand...

Because it was nothing but a delaying tactic. The law was written, the agency was created (by Congress) -- no need for pointless changes now.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
But the claim was that a board of several people would be more accountable somehow.

Why is that any more accountable than doing the same thing with a single appointee?
Click to expand...

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)

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.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Kal'Stang said:
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)

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.
Click to expand...

The president is the chief executive. While it's a bit redundant to say it, the executive branch *should* ultimately be accountable to the president. It should *not* be answerable to Congress as that would be a violation of the separation of powers.

In other words, why should this agency be any different than, e.g. the department of agriculture, or energy, or transportation? Are any of those agencies headed up by a committee? Is decision making by committee now considered a virtue? It sure isn't in the private sector.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
But the claim was that a board of several people would be more accountable somehow.

Why is that any more accountable than doing the same thing with a single appointee?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. My post noted two distinct points of opposition by the GOP. First was the Board, which keeps the entity form being run by a Czar, and the second was accountability, as in funding. The point of accountability via funding had already been noted several times, but you were unaware, and chose to link accountability to teeh Board, which was not a point made, but rather a bad assumption by you. Earlier posts and links clearly explained this. It is inherent upon you to make the effort to know the topic if you are to then criticize. I an others are not going to repeat the entire argument with every post.

misterman said:
Bull****. Nothing came of it. They never even took action. So yeah, it worked out fine.
Click to expand...

It delayed Boeing with some efforts in SC. For expedience sake, Boeing also made a deal with folks back in WA state. The alternative was to delay longer until Republicans took over everything and reversed the idiot politics of Obama and his lackeys on the NLRB. You need to read a little bit more before you post, btw.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

AdamT said:
The president is the chief executive. While it's a bit redundant to say it, the executive branch *should* ultimately be accountable to the president. It should *not* be answerable to Congress as that would be a violation of the separation of powers.

In other words, why should this agency be any different than, e.g. the department of agriculture, or energy, or transportation? Are any of those agencies headed up by a committee? Is decision making by committee now considered a virtue? It sure isn't in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Those are cabinet positions, but more importantly, none are funded by the Federal Reserve.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

misterman said:
Because it was nothing but a delaying tactic. The law was written, the agency was created (by Congress) -- no need for pointless changes now.
Click to expand...

You call them "pointless changes". But since the law was passed, the American public resoundly changed the political landscape in Washington. That's "We The People", btw.

Further, if you had a clue about the machinations of the Housing Bubble, and the entities in Congress most influential with regard to what was, and was not, done, then the names "Dodd - Frank" should send shivers up your spine. Dodd couldn't even seek reelection, he was so tarnished. And now Frank is retiring, with a shove from redistricting, and an eroding voter base of support. In any case, the "watchdog" is the creation of "Dodd-Frank". I would frankly have been more comfortable if it was penned by the Wicked Witch.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
Incorrect. Those are cabinet positions, but more importantly, none are funded by the Federal Reserve.
Click to expand...

So what if they are cabinet positions? How is the principle any different? Likewise, what difference does the funding mechanism make? Congress can still cap the funds that the Fed authorizes for the CFPB. Republicans have already tried to do just that. House committee votes to slash CFPB funding « HousingWire
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

AdamT said:
So what if they are cabinet positions? How is the principle any different? Likewise, what difference does the funding mechanism make? Congress can still cap the funds that the Fed authorizes for the CFPB. Republicans have already tried to do just that. House committee votes to slash CFPB funding « HousingWire
Click to expand...

If I have to explain how direct funding approval is different from whatever indirect funding options vary, then I am either hugely bored, or stupid. Turn the argument back on yourself. If it does not matter, then Obama had no reason to go nuclear, did he ? No reason to poison the well moving forward ?

As earlier links have noted, Obama the Inept chose politics of principle. He cares not a crap about the Republic.
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Eighty Deuce said:
If I have to explain how direct funding approval is different from whatever indirect funding options vary, then I am either hugely bored, or stupid. Turn the argument back on yourself. If it does not matter, then Obama had no reason to go nuclear, did he ? No reason to poison the well moving forward ?

As earlier links have noted, Obama the Inept chose politics of principle. He cares not a crap about the Republic.
Click to expand...

You're getting a little mixed up there. Try arguing one point at a time so we have some chance of figuring out what you're talking about.

Obama made the appointment because Republicans in the Senate had hijacked the advice and consent procedure to try and make substantive changes to a bill that has already been signed into law. Republicans desire is to prevent the Consumer Protection agency from coming into existence. Have you considered for even a second why your party is taking the side of the financial industry, that brought us the Great Recession, against working men and women? You think they care about the Republic? This may all be procedural games to you, but that's not what it's about. What it is about is helping to prevent billionaire bankers from taking advantage of people. I know why Republicans are on the side of the Wall Street Banksters; they've been paid off. What's your angle?
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

AdamT said:
You're getting a little mixed up there. Try arguing one point at a time so we have some chance of figuring out what you're talking about.

Obama made the appointment because Republicans in the Senate had hijacked the advice and consent procedure to try and make substantive changes to a bill that has already been signed into law. Republicans desire is to prevent the Consumer Protection agency from coming into existence. Have you considered for even a second why your party is taking the side of the financial industry, that brought us the Great Recession, against working men and women? You think they care about the Republic? This may all be procedural games to you, but that's not what it's about. What it is about is helping to prevent billionaire bankers from taking advantage of people. I know why Republicans are on the side of the Wall Street Banksters; they've been paid off. What's your angle?
Click to expand...

Here we go again. YOu say "hijacked", but the facts are that the process is as it is, and has been as it is, to allow for political compromise. It does not mandate some pre-condition as to what the politics are. There is no "smell test".

As for the rest of your rant .... sorry, but I do not drink the Kool-Aid. Government was what enabled, and then fomented, the Housing Bubble. And now government says they are the solution.

Chug away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom