Obama to appoint Cordray to head CFPB

[jaminjim]

Hello... hellooo anybody out there.

 

[layoutshooter]

Hello... hellooo anybody out there.

Nope, the world ended and you just never got the message.

 

[greg334]

If they take this to court they will lose

 

[jaminjim]

If they take this to court they will lose

Gesh what do you base that on Greg, gut feeling or some precedent you could direct me towards.

 

[witness23]

Unprecedented my hind leg!

Did you watch the interview?

 

[layoutshooter]

Did you watch the interview?

Which interview? The PBS one? I would sooner watch Pravda.

Am I to take it that you approve of this new government agency? I was under the impression that you supported Ron Paul and the idea of "small government", was I wrong?

 

[greg334]

Gesh what do you base that on Greg, gut feeling or some precedent you could direct me towards.

The constitution.

Do you need a link to it?

He can appoint anyone he wants during a recess but the question is what constitutes a recess. Many claim that congress isn't in recess because they take a break for some odd reason during these holidays, some consider that a holiday break but not a recess. If it is not a recess, then it is simple, it is not valid and life goes on.

Further more there is an issue with the appointment itself, the Senate can overturn that when they get back from their vacation. Seeing that they still have to confirm him to keep the job.

The one thing that many miss, this is a very common practice that is done by all presidents. The last four did more than others but with those last four, there were more of an issue with congress and not the presidents.

 

[witness23]

In post #4 I referenced the WSJ. Haven't been to Fox News yet.

Who owns the Wall Street Journal?

 

[jaminjim]

Who owns the Wall Street Journal?

So you don't debate the fact, just the messenger, got it.

 

[witness23]

Which interview? The PBS one? I would sooner watch Pravda.

Then maybe you shouldn't comment then.

Am I to take it that you approve of this new government agency? I was under the impression that you supported Ron Paul and the idea of "small government", was I wrong?

I do approve of it and it is needed. I don't want a consumer protection agency answering to Congress, who are already in bed with Wall Street.

 

[witness23]

So you don't debate the fact, just the messenger, got it.

Which fact are you speaking of?

 

[layoutshooter]

Then maybe you shouldn't comment then.



I do approve of it and it is needed. I don't want a consumer protection agency answering to Congress, who are already in bed with Wall Street.

That explains everything and confirms much.

Do you believe that they should have regulatory power and a budget? Does the Constitution allow for that? I think not.

PBS needs to have 100% of government funding removed as well. The government has no business in broadcasting the news or editorials in a free country. That is far too Soviet for me.

 

[witness23]

I was under the impression that you supported Ron Paul and the idea of "small government", was I wrong?

I do like Ron Paul and I do like the idea of small government. Here's the difference between you and I. I don't think the big bad government is out to get us. I think the government can do good things and I know they can do bad things. I'm just not afraid of it and I'm comfortable with the way our political system works. I do abhor what Wall Street and money has done to our politics though.

 

[layoutshooter]

I do like Ron Paul and I do like the idea of small government. Here's the difference between you and I. I don't think the big bad government is out to get us. I think the government can do good things and I know they can do bad things. I'm just not afraid of it and I'm comfortable with the way our political system works. I do abhor what Wall Street and money has done to our politics though.

I abhor what Wall Street and money has done to our politics. I abhor what the Democrats and Republicans have done to it.

Do you agree then that the Constitution should be ignored, that the People should NOT have control over the government. That the People should NOT have control over ALL government regulation? That ONLY Congress can regulate? That ONLY Congress can spend money? That the "executive branch" can spend money or regulate, with force, anything?

 

[jaminjim]

The constitution.

Really? What part did you read that convinced you that he acted legally and within the Constitution?

Do you need a link to it?

I'll let that slide.

He can appoint anyone he wants during a recess

Yep pretty much.

but the question is what constitutes a recess.

Well I guess you would need to read that Constitution thingy.
But in essence it is:

Generally, a recess is a break in House or Senate proceedings. Neither chamber may take a break
of more than three days without the consent of the other.6 Such consent is usually provided
through a concurrent resolution.7 A recess within a session is referred to as an intrasession recess.
In recent decades, Congress has typically had 5-11 intrasession recesses of more than three days,
usually in conjunction with national holidays. The break between the end of one session and the
beginning of the next is referred to as an intersession recess. In recent decades, each Congress has
consisted of two 9-12 month sessions separated by an intersession recess. The period between the
second session of one Congress and the first session of the following Congress is also an
intersession recess.
Recent Presidents have made both intersession and intrasession recess appointments. Intrasession
recess appointments were unusual, however, prior to the 1940s, in part because intrasession
recesses were less common at that time. Intrasession recess appointments have sometimes
provoked controversy in the Senate, and some academic literature also has called their legitimacy
into question.8 Legal opinions have also varied on this issue over time. In general, however,
recent opinions have supported the President’s use of the recess appointment authority during
intrasession recesses.9 Intrasession recess appointments are usually of longer duration than
intersession recess appointments.

6 U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, §5, cl. 4.

7 A concurrent resolution requires adoption by both houses, but does not require the President’s signature.
8
Regarding Senate controversy, see Sen. George Mitchell, “The Senate’s Constitutional Authority to Advise and
Consent to the Appointment of Federal Officers,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, July 1, 1993, p. 15266; and Senate
Legal Counsel, “Memorandum of United States Senate as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, and in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motions, for Summary Judgment on Count Two,” U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, Mackie v. Clinton, Civ. Action No. 93-0032-LFO, Congressional Record, vol. 139, July 1, 1993, pp. 15267-
15274. For academic literature, see, for example, Michael A. Carrier, “When Is the Senate in Recess for Purposes of
the Recess Appointments Clause?” Michigan Law Review, vol. 92, June 1994.
9
For information and analysis related to the legal landscape in this area, see CRS Report RL33009, Recess
Appointments: A Legal Overview, by Vivian S. Chu.

Many claim that congress isn't in recess because they take a break for some odd reason during these holidays, some consider that a holiday break but not a recess. If it is not a recess, then it is simple, it is not valid and life goes on.

If need to read up on it here is a link.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

Further more there is an issue with the appointment itself, the Senate can overturn that when they get back from their vacation. Seeing that they still have to confirm him to keep the job.

Do you mean if there is?

The one thing that many miss, this is a very common practice that is done by all presidents. The last four did more than others but with those last four, there were more of an issue with congress and not the presidents.

Nope sorry not when Congress has not recessed. It is not about a recess appointment, he can and has done that along with a bunch of other Presidents, But they did it according to the Constitution, need a link?

 

[jaminjim]

Which fact are you speaking of?

Try to keep up. Maybe less face palms, or

Yeah, that's it. <sarcasm>

would help you stay up with the conversation.
The one that I brought up in my first post in this thread. He apparently violated the Constitution by making a recess appointment when Congress was not in recess.

 

[greg334]

Yes I understand all of that but here is the thing, unless congress actually acts as congress, any law suit will not make much of a difference because a member of congress can't sue the president for a move he made while he was performing his duties, there's something about executing your duties and having immunity and separation of powers.

They have to move to do one of two things - vacate the appointment which I understand takes 2/3s of a vote in the full senate or move to impeach - so you think of some reason why they will do either.

This is really a moot point in the bigger scheme of things and rather some of the things I continue to hear seem to point to a very partisan issue being behind the idea that he did a very bad thing.

 

[jaminjim]

So you are saying that The President was performing his duty, one that he knowingly violated the Constitution in so doing??? I'm not saying that he should be impeached, but slapped around a little bit (metaphorically). His appointment of Cordray should be reversed. Then possibly a stern warning in private.

Amazing how so many talk about the loss of liberty, and then turn around and shrug your shoulders when something like this happens.

 

[greg334]

So you are saying that The President was performing his duty, one that he knowingly violated the Constitution in so doing??? I'm not saying that he should be impeached, but slapped around a little bit (metaphorically). His appointment of Cordray should be reversed. Then possibly a stern warning in private.

Amazing how so many talk about the loss of liberty, and then turn around and shrug your shoulders when something like this happens.

No I'm saying that the recourse for a solution has to do with the senate first then his actions. The bs that some are spreading - from constitutional crisis to the dictator type move - while John Bolton among a number of others were appointed in simular circumstance.

The really amazing thing is that people are blinded by the hate that they don't want to think about the past presidents.

 

[jaminjim]

No I'm saying that the recourse for a solution has to do with the senate first

In the context of this discussion what are you going to do with the Senate?

then his actions.

It's his actions only.

The bs that some are spreading - from constitutional crisis to the dictator type move

Well I'm not going to go that far just yet.

- while John Bolton among a number of others were appointed in simular circumstance.

Similar only that they by-passed the confirmation of the Senate. One apparently in violation of the Constitution, all the others while the Congress was in recess.

The really amazing thing is that people are blinded by the hate that they don't want to think about the past presidents.

So are you saying that if someone disagrees with the President it is only due to hate? Is that a straw-man thingy?