Presidental Power

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Presidental Power

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/obama-unprecedented-recess-appointment/

    This isn't a D v. R question...between this and the language Obama insisted had to be included in the NDAA has the power and scope of the presidency grown too much?  And for those leftward leaning posters who complained about abuses of power under the Bush presidency, can you defend this action?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    Oh, please.

    Repubs' attempts at melodrama always amuse me.

    Given the catastrophic events in the financial sector these past 3-30 years, this form of consumer protection was long overdue.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    Obama the "constitutional scholar" says "let the laws be damned".

    What a 2 faced lying phoney.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    President Obama will appoint Richard Cordray to be head of a controversial consumer consumer financial protection agency despite the fact that Congress is not officially in recess.

    White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted the widely expected announcement on Wednesday before the president headed out on a campaign-style event to Ohio. 

    "We Can't Wait: Today in Ohio, President Obama will announce the recess appointment of Consumer Watchdog Richard Cordray," he tweeted. Cordray was to appear with Obama during the official announcement in Cordray's home state.

    The Constitution does not expressly forbid such an appointment, which would technically come as an intrasession posting. But the defiant move is sure to raise questions of executive power and whether the administration is overstepping its authority.

    The fight also goes to the heart of the presidential reelection campaign, which aims to demonstrate Obama's leadership of a cagey economy and his effort to protect the middle class from Wall Street excesses.

    With Cordray in place, the CFPB will begin to oversee the mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies faulted for the 2008 economic meltdown.

    But the move outraged Republican lawmakers. 

    "This is a very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House," said Sen. orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Circumventing the Senate and tossing out decades of precedent to appoint an unaccountable czar to appease its liberal base is beneath the Office of the President."

    House Speaker John Boehner called it "an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department."

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]Oh, please. Repubs' attempts at melodrama always amuse me. Given the catastrophic events in the financial sector these past 3-30 years, this form of consumer protection was long overdue.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    be that as it may, does it excuse the way the appointment was made and goes it set a bad precident for future executive branch end runs around Congress? 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power : be that as it may, does it excuse the way the appointment was made and goes it set a bad precident for future executive branch end runs around Congress? 
    Posted by sshore123[/QUOTE]

    Two separate questions clouded by the events of the past decade - in which ways outranked means on a global scale AND any "precedents" re: executive power were given short shrift indeed. 

    But it's plain chutzpah to complain about an appointment to a post that Repubs think shouldn't exist in the first place.

    And sorry, but arguments about smaller govt do not convincingly quash the idea of protecting american consumers from shady financial practices.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]  You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
    Posted by howiewho[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, right.

    Except that the financial sector is doing gangbusters...record profits, exec bonuses and cash reserves.  Remember that when another tax cut extension for millionaires comes up for a vote.

    You really trust them to police themselves?  Really?!?  If so, you're more gullible than I thought, and there's a gambian princess out there looking for you.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power : Two separate questions clouded by the events of the past decade - in which ways outranked means on a global scale AND any "precedents" re: executive power were given short shrift indeed.  But it's plain chutzpah to complain about an appointment to a post that Repubs think shouldn't exist in the first place. And sorry, but arguments about smaller govt do not convincingly quash the idea of protecting american consumers from shady financial practices.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I'm not arguing about the appointment itself or the need for the agency itself.  I'm talking about the manner in which it was accomplished.  This, coupled with the abosolute power given to this lone individual running the agency (when most others operate as committees and are answerable to Congress and other agencies, this agency and its director has neither concern.  The "shady" practices are at the discretion of 1 individual without appeal and can be brushed aside or allowed to happen based on their sole judgement) coupled with the powers finally "legalized" under NDAA and used by both Bush and Obama concerns me that the President has too much authority and can shoo Congress away when they aren't "cooperative", as the President said himself in the article. 

    I'm not trying to paint this as a partisan issue, although based upon your posting history I doubt you'd be this forgiving if it were Bush or any of the current crop of "candidates" (I use the term loosely) for the Republicans making the same appoitment to any body with this much concentrated power. 
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    Recess appointments are perfectly constitutional

    Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution states:

    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.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power : I'm not arguing about the appointment itself or the need for the agency itself.  I'm talking about the manner in which it was accomplished.  This, coupled with the abosolute power given to this lone individual running the agency (when most others operate as committees and are answerable to Congress and other agencies, this agency and its director has neither concern.  The "shady" practices are at the discretion of 1 individual without appeal and can be brushed aside or allowed to happen based on their sole judgement) coupled with the powers finally "legalized" under NDAA and used by both Bush and Obama concerns me that the President has too much authority and can shoo Congress away when they aren't "cooperative", as the President said himself in the article.  I'm not trying to paint this as a partisan issue, although based upon your posting history I doubt you'd be this forgiving if it were Bush or any of the current crop of "candidates" (I use the term loosely) for the Republicans making the same appoitment to any body with this much concentrated power. 
    Posted by sshore123[/QUOTE]

    But that's the whole point.  When the Executive changes to Repub, they will appoint their own minions.

    As we've seen on many issues, particularly economic ones, Congress has the upper hand and the ability to stymie even basic govt business.  How has that worked out?  A down-graded credit rating, for one.

    Now, this is a new agency/mandate, so any concerns about "concentrated power" are purely speculative and a bit premature.  A bloated committee can be just as obstinate as a single director.  I thought you guys liked less govt, not more.

    And mark my words, any such moves will no doubt be seen as "leadership" by Repubs when they are back in the big chair.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    So this is Obamas dream of fufilling wealth distribution.. by executive decree.

    Damian.. there is NO RECESS.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from sshore123. Show sshore123's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power : But that's the whole point.  When the Executive changes to Repub, they will appoint their own minions. As we've seen on many issues, particularly economic ones, Congress has the upper hand and the ability to stymie even basic govt business.  How has that worked out?  A down-graded credit rating, for one. Now, this is a new agency/mandate, so any concerns about "concentrated power" are purely speculative and a bit premature.  A bloated committee can be just as obstinate as a single director.  I thought you guys liked less govt, not more. And mark my words, any such moves will no doubt be seen as "leadership" by Repubs when they are back in the big chair.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Now, this is a new agency/mandate, so any concerns about "concentrated power" are purely speculative and a bit premature. 

    Could very well be I'll grant you that, but in looking at Dodd-Frank as it is written and the power and protection CFPB is afforded (structured to be fully independent and  not subject to oversight by the Fed or any other federal financial regulator, Congress, or even the Executive.  It's funding is protected so that Congress can't play hard ball in that manner either (a good thing actually).  The director has unilateral authority to bar any financial practice s/he doesn't approve of without recourse) its also not that far of a stretch

    When the Executive changes to Repub, they will appoint their own minions.

    The point I'm making, an un-checked appointment like this is dangerous regardless of political outlook

    I thought you guys liked less govt, not more

    Who are you guys?  I'm not a Republican if that's what your inferring, I like to think I have a bit more common sense.  Too bad they've has the heads in their...they've cried wolf so many time about Obama that this time when it's a legitimate gripe it falls on deaf ears

    Again - the agency itself will hopefully be very benefical, not arguing against it.  My issue is with the how and why this occurred
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power :   First ! Wall Steet (I assumue your refer.) Is world wide. Try all you want gambling with stocks is 100yrs olds. Banks are going bust every day even with GOV (our money) support, mainly Freddy/Mac who allowed the low int. and selling on WS. It was back by the GOV. If your ever in NY go to the exchange. As I have said here many times ! I knew back in 90's when I sold my first house (4) something was wrong, made a 50k profit in 3 years. Gov back loan /> 
    Posted by howiewho[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but your post doesn't make any sense.

    We're talking about consumer protections on financial products. 

    We're talking about ordinary people who are suckered into usurious situations by dishonest brokers.

    We're talking about the govt acting in the public interest by mitigating another such financial collapse...or at least establishing a trail to punish the culprits.

    Capitalism is not a license for thievery.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power : Now, this is a new agency/mandate, so any concerns about "concentrated power" are purely speculative and a bit premature.  Could very well be I'll grant you that, but in looking at Dodd-Frank as it is written and the power and protection CFPB is afforded (structured to be fully independent and  not subject to oversight by the Fed or any other federal financial regulator, Congress, or even the Executive.  It's funding is protected so that Congress can't play hard ball in that manner either (a good thing actually).  The director has unilateral authority to bar any financial practice s/he doesn't approve of without recourse) its also not that far of a stretch When the Executive changes to Repub, they will appoint their own minions. The point I'm making, an un-checked appointment like this is dangerous regardless of political outlook I thought you guys liked less govt, not more Who are you guys?  I'm not a Republican if that's what your inferring, I like to think I have a bit more common sense.  Too bad they've has the heads in their...they've cried wolf so many time about Obama that this time when it's a legitimate gripe it falls on deaf ears Again - the agency itself will hopefully be very benefical, not arguing against it.  My issue is with the how and why this occurred
    Posted by sshore123[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, then, because I think we're splitting hairs.

    Whatever "way" it was done is purely circumstantial.  Is it the best way?  No, but "best" and "most practical" are not always aligned. 

    However, if I had seen a Dem majority in the house as intransigent as the Repubs have been, then I would understand - even if I didn't agree - such a move on the part of a GOP Exec.  Torture of detainees, OTOH, not so much.

    As for the 'power' of the CFPB Director, that too is relative...especially if one thinks, as I do, that most of the power is coming the other way, from the financial sector which doesn't want anyone looking over their shoulders.  Its relative independence from either Leg or Exec meddling is likely a good thing.

    In the end, there's no 'precedent' now that didn't ostensibly exist before.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    AP

    July 18, 2011: President Obama announces the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”

     

    Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.

     

    Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

     

    If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense.  But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.

     

    According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.  

     

    The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” 

     

    In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House.  Speaker John Boehner has properly withheld that consent to prevent Obama from installing radical appointees into key positions.

     

    There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy.  In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010:  “Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period.  For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.”

     

    Obama’s attempt to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray while the Senate is in pro forma session is especially galling in light of the history of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the broad powers that Cordray – if Obama’s sleight of hand is permitted by the courts – will wield over the United States economy.

     

    The CFPB has the power to interfere with every consumer financial transaction in the economy. It is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded out of Fed operations, not congressional appropriations, avoiding effective congressional oversight.  

     

    All power is vested in one individual – now, presumably Cordray – with no board or commission.  None of this was part of Elizabeth Warren’s original design, which included a five-member commission that was funded and overseen by Congress.  Senate Republicans have correctly called for reforms to make the new agency accountable before confirming a nominee and allowing it to begin writing rules that could have a major negative impact on the economy.

     

    Obama doesn’t care.  He’s making is up as he goes along.  What a difference four years makes.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    Speaker Boehner called this an "unprecedented power grab"....... that George Bush did over 60 times during his presidency.

    lol

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    Is Bush a current issue?

    You're grounded.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    Thanks for ignoring all other content in the article except the last sentence.

    O doesn't give a rats azz about the constitution... just HIS own political ambitions.  
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    My fellow American (I assume),

    This isn't an R or D issue. I object to the legal extremes this man is willing to push in order to get what appears to be a political edge.
    This self promoting, self serving constitutional scholar does not care about the constitution.

    I won't call names.. you have far too much experience.

    Question is.. will this go to court and when?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Presidental Power

    In Response to Re: Presidental Power:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Presidental Power :  Sorry we come from different cultures. You trust some Gov agency to run your house .
    Posted by howiewho[/QUOTE]


    Don't presume to tell me how my house is run.

    Cultures aside, your lack of nuance is troubling enough to question your credibility.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share