Obama goes off the deep end with recess appointments
E. Thomas McClanahanPresident Obama has signaled that his re-election strategy will rest on painting Congress as the villain. Given that the Senate remains in Democratic hands, one can only guess what vulnerable Democratic senators think about that.
Anyway, Obama’s latest move was to make four highly questionable recess appointments — questionable because the Senate remained in pro forma session. Recess appointments are supposed to occur during recesses.
As The Wall Street Journal notes, the Constitution says neither house can adjourn without the permission of the other body. The House did not give its consent for a Senate recess. A similar gambit was used by the Dems during the last two years of President Bush’s second term. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid argued that this tactic was a valid roadblock to any Bush recess appointments.
Bush declined to make any appointments, but now the shoe is on the other foot. Obama has done it and Reid is saying well sure, the president can do that. No problem. While some will argue that a pro forma session isn’t a real session, Obama has gratuitously provoked a potential constitutional crisis.
In his appointments, Obama named three people to the National Labor Relations Board and appointed Richard Cordray, five-time undefeated “Jeopardy” champ and former Ohio attorney general, as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The NLRB appointees were only identified three weeks ago and the Senate never even had an opportunity to hold hearings on their fitness. Never mind: Forget that “advice and consent” business in the Constitution.
As for Cordray, the Republicans’ beef seems less with him than with the structure of the agency, which will be a true run-amok bureaucracy. The agency isn’t even subject to the normal appropriations process. The director will set his own budget, with money drawn from Federal Reserve earnings. The CFPB is nominally under the Fed but the Fed can’t do much to hold it accountable. The CFPB budget could be as high as $500 million.
The bureau’s rules can be overturned by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, but that would take a two-thirds vote and one of the votes is the CFPB director. It’s going to be interesting to see what sort of unintended consequences flow from a rule-making body with so little accountability.
Google+
Share
Tweet
George Harris
Kansas City
1 month, 2 weeks agoFrom the Washington Post: “Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 of them were for full-time gigs. As of Wednesday, President Obama has made 32 recess appointments, all of them to full-time positions, according to the White House.”
John Bolton’s appointment to the U.S. was a controversial Bush recess appointment, as I recall.
Kent Mueller
1 month, 2 weeks agoGeorge, those are interesting facts, but they have nothing to do with this situation. Congress is not in recess. Per our constitution, neither house can go into recess without the consent of the other. The House did not give the Senate permission to go into recess, so therefore, there is no recess. You may say that is simply a trick on the part of the Republican controlled House to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. However, it is EXACTLY the same thing Harry Reid did for two years with Bush in the White House. Bush chose to follow the constitution and he did not make illegal appointments during that time. Obama made the choice to flaunt the constitution and make appointments while Congress was in session.
But thanks for the lists, those are interesting facts. Perhaps they will pertain to a future discussion. They don’t pertain to this one.
Mark Hastert
1 month, 2 weeks agoActually it’s a pretty shrewd strategy. He’s highlighting a congress that refuses to govern and is obstructing him from governing. The more the Rebublicans howl about it the more they attract attention to their obstructionism.
Whether congress is really in session is a debatable issue. They aren’t doing any business and Obama will argue that were was not a quorum. In either case it doesn’t matter to the average voter.
Kent Mueller
1 month, 2 weeks agoMark, please remember back further than yesterday. This “tactic” was invented by Harry Reid. Reid kept congress in session during the Bush Administration to prevent recess appointments. Bush respected the constitution and did not make “recess” appointments while Congress remained in session, regardless of whether the congressmen were in Washington or not.
And no, it isn’t debatable if Congress is in session. The constitution is very clear that Congress writes its own rules of governess over their own conduct. The rule is also very clear. Neither house can adjourn without the explicit consent of the other house. You can’t understand this?
And no congressional business is being done? Shows what you know. Congressional work on the two months SS tax cut extension continues as we speak. And why bring up not having a quorum? That has noting to do with anything. Even when the congressmen are in Washington, there isn’t a quorum the majority of the time. Does that mean a president can make a recess appointment the moment a congressman leaves to go to the bathroom, leaving them one short of a quorum? Of course not.
Why do you bring up so many points that are either non-nonsensical, or don’t pertain to this discussion?
Kevin Groenhagen
1 month, 2 weeks agoMark Hastert:
“Whether congress is really in session is a debatable issue. They aren’t doing any business and Obama will argue that were was not a quorum. In either case it doesn’t matter to the average voter.”
It must be noted that Reid, Obama and other Senate Democrats used and defended the exact same tactic while George W. Bush was president. Bush honored the Constitution; Obama hasn’t.
Allan Masri
1 month, 2 weeks agoOnce again, Republicans argue about process, not government. The President is authorized by law to make appointments to government agencies. The Republicans are using parliamentary procedures to block his appointments. They are usurping power granted to the executive branch by preventing the President from following the law. The President can argue that he is acting in accordance with the law and overrides Senate rules of procedure.
Whether liberals or war protesters fail to serve the government has nothing to do with whether John Huntsman and his sons serve the government. Romney is calling for a revolution here. He suggests that US citizens have the right to ignore laws if they disagree with the President. Instead of obeying the laws and acting in the best interests of the country, citizens should oppose the President in every way possible.
Neither Citizens nor States have the right to ignore the laws of the Federal Government because they disagree with them.
Governor Christie suggests that Obama is not a tyrant but a weakling because he failed to dismiss Huntsman from his post for insubordination. The Republicans cannot have it both ways. The President cannot be both a tyrant, exercising powers that he does not have, and a weakling, failing to exercise powers that he does.