I ran across an article today by a guy named Andrew McCarthy (I have no idea if he is related to Joe) that really got me thinking about the responsibility of both parties for our current mess. I highly recommend it.
You may or may not know that on Wednesday President Obama preempted the Senate to appoint the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board. What made this extraordinary was two factors.
#1, the Senate was in Pro-Forma session, not in recess. Article 2, section 2 of the the Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." However, if the Senate is NOT in recess, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
The White House, to justify its move, argued that the Pro-Forma session does not actually qualify as "in session." Though no real meaningful business is conducted during a Pro-Forma session, the Senate is considered "open for business" and thus NOT in recess. In fact, on December 23, the the Senate passed the payroll tax extension during a Pro-Forma session. Add to this the fact that this use of Pro-Forma was begun by Harry Reid in 2007 to prevent then President Bush from making recess appointments AND was supported by the Obama administration as recently as 2010.
#2, A larger issue is that the appointment of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Richard Cordray) seems to run afoul of the written law of the CFPB itself. Title X, Subtitle A, SEC. 1011, sub Sec (b), sub-sub sec. (2) of the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’’ (if you'd like to "follow along" at home, turn to page 589 of 848) states the Director of the CFPB "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Additionally, Title X, Subtitle F, SEC. 1066, sub Sec (b) (page 680, please!) states: "The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011." Thus, unlike the concise and elegant wording of the Constitution, the bloated verbiage of "Frank-Dodd" conspicuously (and ironically?) leaves out a recess appointment option for the the CFPB head. Thus it seems the legislation leaves only the option of being confirmed by the Senate, and thus would bar appointment during a recess, bypassing altogether any debate about what does and does not qualify as "recess." (For another take on this, check out this Daily Caller article).
But it's just the law. What does it matter anyway, right?
As an added bonus, you might be interested to know that Richard Cordray (the newly minted CFPB head) believes anything that "has incidental effects on the economy" can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. If that be the standard, what action or inaction that you or I or any citizen of these United States might take would NOT have "incidental effects on the economy?" This standard opens the gates for Government regulation of every single aspect of our lives on an economic basis. Just for grins and giggles, you might remind yourself once again of what the all-powerful Commerce Clause (found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), actually says: "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." I am no Constitutional scholar, but this simple statement seems light-years away from the all-pervasive power claimed by those of Cordray's ilk today.
But, all of this misses a much larger and more important issue, namely that the usurpation of power is NOT simply a Democratic phenomenon that needs a Republican solution. It is a drug to which BOTH parties have become addicted and from which BOTH parties must be weaned. Until we (you and I and every American) learn this lesson, we will continue to be disappointed by those on "our" side--whatever side that may be! Not until we demand of BOTH parties that power be returned to "the People" from whence it originates and to whom it rightly belongs, we will continue to slide ever further into the abyss we find ourselves in today.
I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article I mentioned earlier. It is a great overview of the the consequences of these recent events as well as the broader and more fundamental question of why they are allowed to continue--by BOTH parties.
You may or may not know that on Wednesday President Obama preempted the Senate to appoint the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board. What made this extraordinary was two factors.
#1, the Senate was in Pro-Forma session, not in recess. Article 2, section 2 of the the Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." However, if the Senate is NOT in recess, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
The White House, to justify its move, argued that the Pro-Forma session does not actually qualify as "in session." Though no real meaningful business is conducted during a Pro-Forma session, the Senate is considered "open for business" and thus NOT in recess. In fact, on December 23, the the Senate passed the payroll tax extension during a Pro-Forma session. Add to this the fact that this use of Pro-Forma was begun by Harry Reid in 2007 to prevent then President Bush from making recess appointments AND was supported by the Obama administration as recently as 2010.
#2, A larger issue is that the appointment of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Richard Cordray) seems to run afoul of the written law of the CFPB itself. Title X, Subtitle A, SEC. 1011, sub Sec (b), sub-sub sec. (2) of the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’’ (if you'd like to "follow along" at home, turn to page 589 of 848) states the Director of the CFPB "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Additionally, Title X, Subtitle F, SEC. 1066, sub Sec (b) (page 680, please!) states: "The Secretary is authorized to perform the functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011." Thus, unlike the concise and elegant wording of the Constitution, the bloated verbiage of "Frank-Dodd" conspicuously (and ironically?) leaves out a recess appointment option for the the CFPB head. Thus it seems the legislation leaves only the option of being confirmed by the Senate, and thus would bar appointment during a recess, bypassing altogether any debate about what does and does not qualify as "recess." (For another take on this, check out this Daily Caller article).
But it's just the law. What does it matter anyway, right?
As an added bonus, you might be interested to know that Richard Cordray (the newly minted CFPB head) believes anything that "has incidental effects on the economy" can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. If that be the standard, what action or inaction that you or I or any citizen of these United States might take would NOT have "incidental effects on the economy?" This standard opens the gates for Government regulation of every single aspect of our lives on an economic basis. Just for grins and giggles, you might remind yourself once again of what the all-powerful Commerce Clause (found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution), actually says: "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." I am no Constitutional scholar, but this simple statement seems light-years away from the all-pervasive power claimed by those of Cordray's ilk today.
But, all of this misses a much larger and more important issue, namely that the usurpation of power is NOT simply a Democratic phenomenon that needs a Republican solution. It is a drug to which BOTH parties have become addicted and from which BOTH parties must be weaned. Until we (you and I and every American) learn this lesson, we will continue to be disappointed by those on "our" side--whatever side that may be! Not until we demand of BOTH parties that power be returned to "the People" from whence it originates and to whom it rightly belongs, we will continue to slide ever further into the abyss we find ourselves in today.
I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and read the article I mentioned earlier. It is a great overview of the the consequences of these recent events as well as the broader and more fundamental question of why they are allowed to continue--by BOTH parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a message, but understand I reserve the right to cut it at will--AT WILL!!