owebama ignores the Constitution

Fresh off ignoring the War Powers Act in Libya, owebama has chosen to ignore the Constitution by recess appointing several people people to the NLRB as well as cordray to the Consumer Protection Bureau.

The president can only make recess appointments when Congress is not in session. However Congress is still in session as the House never adjourned.

Hoops, you are 0 for 2 today. One more strike and you have to go back to the integrity dugout with your head hung in shame.

The House plays no role in the recess appointment process whatsoever and their session status is irrelevant to the process. The Senate must be out of Session for 3 days before the president can make these appointments...and it has. Obama is following the same "unconstitutional" footsteps as the last president did to make appointments - you know, the guy you voted for twice.

As to my opinion - 3 years into his term Obama is still unable to staff his cabinet due to the unprecedented obstruction and abuse of power by the Senate Minority. So now he's stiff arming them? ABout friggin time !

Pj, I don't believe he is "stiff arming them", more like he is giving them the "finger".

One more year, one more year, one more year.

Actually both partially right and both partially wrong. PJ is correct it is not the congress as such since the House of Representatives plays no part. PJ is also correct they time frame is Senate adjourned for 3 days. Hoops however may be correct in that the Senate has not adjourned. They are gaveling in and out of session, with one Senator present and being present for 30 seconds, to prevent the Senate from being in recess. Whether this is legal or Constitutional will have to be decided, probably ultimately, by the Supreme Court.

This tactic, by the way, was used by the Democrats to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments.

PJ;

Which cabinet position has not been filled? According to the White House's official site they are filled and have been for quite awhile.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

Having lived through the GWBush years and been awed by that man's capacity to ignore the Constitution (warrantless wiretapping of American citizens within this country; signing statements explaining why federal law will not be followed; NSA collection of American phone records; refusal to allow foreign nationals imprisoned at Gitmo judicial review of their detention; federal usurpation of states rights regarding medical marijuana, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, to name a few) it humors me to see this President's detractors think that appointing a man to head a consumer protection agency, where a majority of the Senate supports that appointment but can't vote on it due to Senate rules, is a Constitutional crisis worth noting.

What's the fear, that the federal government will be too aggressive in protecting consumers? Shudder....

Nevertheless, I believe this recess appointment may indeed be unconstitutional, and that these detractors have a point.

It's definitely good hardball politics for the President, but it may be unconstitutional. I'm sure the courts, given an opportunity, will let us know.

Even though he said he would not do signing statements owebama has; as recently as last week.

He also just signed a law allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens involved with possible terrorism; this will probably be overturned.

Remember when he was campaigning he said it would no longer be business as usual if elected. Not only is it business as usual he continues to stretch the rubber band

To be fair the Republicans do NOT object to the apppointment of Mr Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but rather have some objections to the agency itself, specifically that it will not be accountable to congress. This source summarizes the 3 main objections the Republicans have with the agency:
https://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/flashback-senator-outlines-objections-to-unaccountable-consumer-czar/

I can NOT vouch for the website but the reporting in this case is accurate summary.

That provision was authored by Republicans and shoved into the defense funding bill. The president threatened to veto it until they watered it down which they eventually did. I wont argue that its still a BS provision....but as usual Hoops blames the president for Republican Policy.


The president's own words describing the very provision Hoops incorrectly blames him for while giving a complete pass to the Republicans who authored it....
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” Obama said in a signing statement appended to the measure. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

PS - One of the sponcers of that particular provision in the Defense funding bill was the same guy Hoops voted for president in 2008. He spent the day defending it yesterday.