Another reason to dislike our leaders

[PaulS]

David Frum


(CNN) -- Watch the Republican primaries, and you can feel: the American political system is working. The GOP is discarding the unqualified and irresponsible candidates and rapidly converging on the person in the race who could actually do the job of president.
But the week's second biggest political story shows a very different reality: a political system careening toward crisis. This is the story of the battle over President Barack Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Senate Republicans prevented that nomination from coming to a vote. In retaliation, Obama bent the law to force the nomination through. Republicans now accuse the president of defying the Constitution -- and some are muttering darkly about impeachable offenses.

Many citizens may shrug off these machinations as "politics as usual." But what is happening in the Cordray story is anything but usual.
The whole saga is a succession of extreme acts.


Republicans furious over recess appointments
The first extreme act was the creation of the CFPB itself. Normally, federal regulatory bodies have multiple commissioners, some reserved for the minority party. CFPB has only one commissioner who controls vast and hazy powers over all American finance.
The second extreme act was the Republican attempt to force changes in the CFPB by refusing to schedule a confirmation vote for the president's nominee to head the agency. Under the arcane procedures of the Senate, any one senator can indefinitely delay a vote on a nominee. This power is not found in any law. It's not found in the written rules of the Senate. It's a custom that has grown and grown and been applied ever more promiscuously by senators of both parties to advance narrow agendas.
The third extreme act was Obama's decision to install Cordray by recess appointment: a temporary appointment bypassing the Senate's confirmation process.
While presidents often use recess appointments, they did not usually do so for very high-profile jobs at very powerful agencies. The increasing prevalence of recess appointments to very important jobs in the George W. Bush and now Obama administrations reveals a widening divide between administrations and Congress--and declining respect for each others' prerogatives.
As the CFPB's first head, Cordray would create precedents, define procedures -- and would do so without ever answering a question from Congress.
The fourth extreme act was the Senate's maneuver to forestall the Cordray recess appointment. Senate Republicans resorted to a series of parliamentary maneuvers to keep the Senate supposedly "in session" -- even as almost all senators left town for the Christmas/New Year holiday -- to prevent any "recess" during which a recess appointment could be made.
The fifth extreme act was Obama's decision to disregard the Senate's maneuvers and push through a Cordray recess appointment all the same -- basically telling the Senate: if you don't like, sue me.
That's where the story stands now, but it's not very likely where the story ends. House and Senate Republicans can now try to zero out the CFPB's budget or paralyze its operations through endless subpoenas.
Legal experts can find precedents for this or that element of the saga. Even the attempt to pretend the Senate remains in session when it obviously is not in session has been tried before.
Together, however, these elements do add up to a new ruthlessness of party competition. It's like a bar fight, where the fighters keep grabbing up things that used to be furniture -- chairs, tables, plate-glass mirrors -- to use as weapons instead. Not only are they bleeding each other. They are trashing the joint.

[spence]

I like Frum, a real conservative who doesn't bow before false party icons.

He's also Canadian and I like Canada.

Like I said in the other thread, take it to the courts and let's decide once and for all what the rules are going to be.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like Frum, a real conservative who doesn't bow before false party icons.

This is one of those Spencerian sentences that has no discernable meaning but sounds like it does.

He's also Canadian and I like Canada.

We are Americans. Do you like the U.S.A.? Perhaps you would prefer a Canadian parliamentary system and a Canadian constitution?

Like I said in the other thread, take it to the courts and let's decide once and for all what the rules are going to be.

-spence

But what if no one takes it to the courts? The fact that it's being mentioned must make the SCOTUS a bit nervous. There is no provision under the judicial power granted to it in the Constitution which gives the Court standing here. Its power extends to cases of law and equity involving a list of items in which Congress's determination on recess is not mentioned nor implied. Further, Article 1, section 7 states "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Sates . . ." clearly giving Congress the power to decide for itself on questions of adjournment. It can decide for itself when it is in recess.

The power of the Federal Government has been growing out of proportion to that which it was given in the Constitution, and, along with that federal expansion, the power of the POTUS has been growing even more. It was intended by the Founders that Congress, especially the House of Representatives, would be the strongest arm of federal power, with the judicial being the weakest. Strong Presidents have been able through "bully pulpit" demagoguery to force their will on a weakening Congress and thus becoming the strongest branch of government--almost to the point of being responsible for, and looked to for, solving most of the nation's problems, even to defining what the problems are. The Court, through the pretense of "interpretation," has given itself an even more powerful mode of legislation than was granted to Congress. It doesn't have to get elected. Only five judges are required to pass it's mandates. The Congress has become the step-child fighting for its rightful place.

So now we have a President who has taken one more of Congress's prerogatives, and the proposed solution is to let the Court step in and take a piece as well? Do we really want the rise of a monarchic type executive and a judiciary that legislates by opinion rather than merely adjudicates according to law to further weaken the Peoples elected representatives? And all in order to avoid contentions? I say, in the great tradition of American politics, let them sqauble. Let them fight, and delay, and obfuscate, and make it EXTREMELY difficult to pass legislation after legislation (was it 40,000 bills that were passed last year?), and agency after agency. The Federal Government is getting farther and farther away from us, and it is creating a larger and larger unelected bureaucracy which administers more and more portions of our lives, finances, businesses, health . . . It was CLEARLY not meant to be so.

But the British and their Canadian fellow travelers, according to some here, know better. It's like we're about to fight the Revolution all over again. The Tories versus the Rebels. We've had our tea party, now . . . in the original revolution the Tories and the King had the upper hand, but dogged perseverence and stupid British military decisions allowed the Rebels victory . . . and a new republic with a unique system of government was born . . . a system that granted and required individual effort, responsibility, and a virtuous faithfulness to its declared values and to a constant defense of its Constitution. How far we have departed from those requirements, is how far we are from that republic. The Tories would be happy.

[Fishpart]

detbuch, have you been studying The Federalist Papers again?? Seems like you are pointing out the exact things the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

It is a shame that the greatest enemy of the Constitution is the very government that derives its power from it..

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one of those Spencerian sentences that has no discernable meaning but sounds like it does.

At first glance I thought this was a question, then I realized it was an assertion.

I thought it was pretty obvious. Perhaps you should read up on your Frum.

We are Americans. Do you like the U.S.A.? Perhaps you would prefer a Canadian parliamentary system and a Canadian constitution?

I've done a lot of business in Canada, at least in the eastern half. I've always found Canadians to be gracious, even handed, polite and have a frugality about them that is to be admired.

And the chicks in Ottawa are pretty hot.

Also there's Rush.

Given their politics the notion that they could even birth a person like Frum is note worthy.

But what if no one takes it to the courts? The fact that it's being mentioned must make the SCOTUS a bit nervous. There is no provision under the judicial power granted to it in the Constitution which gives the Court standing here. Its power extends to cases of law and equity involving a list of items in which Congress's determination on recess is not mentioned nor implied. Further, Article 1, section 7 states "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Sates . . ." clearly giving Congress the power to decide for itself on questions of adjournment. It can decide for itself when it is in recess.

The power of the Federal Government has been growing out of proportion to that which it was given in the Constitution, and, along with that federal expansion, the power of the POTUS has been growing even more. It was intended by the Founders that Congress, especially the House of Representatives, would be the strongest arm of federal power, with the judicial being the weakest. Strong Presidents have been able through "bully pulpit" demagoguery to force their will on a weakening Congress and thus becoming the strongest branch of government--almost to the point of being responsible for, and looked to for, solving most of the nation's problems, even to defining what the problems are. The Court, through the pretense of "interpretation," has given itself an even more powerful mode of legislation than was granted to Congress. It doesn't have to get elected. Only five judges are required to pass it's mandates. The Congress has become the step-child fighting for its rightful place.

So now we have a President who has taken one more of Congress's prerogatives, and the proposed solution is to let the Court step in and take a piece as well? Do we really want the rise of a monarchic type executive and a judiciary that legislates by opinion rather than merely adjudicates according to law to further weaken the Peoples elected representatives? And all in order to avoid contentions? I say, in the great tradition of American politics, let them sqauble. Let them fight, and delay, and obfuscate, and make it EXTREMELY difficult to pass legislation after legislation (was it 40,000 bills that were passed last year?), and agency after agency. The Federal Government is getting farther and farther away from us, and it is creating a larger and larger unelected bureaucracy which administers more and more portions of our lives, finances, businesses, health . . . It was CLEARLY not meant to be so.

But the British and their Canadian fellow travelers, according to some here, know better. It's like we're about to fight the Revolution all over again. The Tories versus the Rebels. We've had our tea party, now . . . in the original revolution the Tories and the King had the upper hand, but dogged perseverence and stupid British military decisions allowed the Rebels victory . . . and a new republic with a unique system of government was born . . . a system that granted and required individual effort, responsibility, and a virtuous faithfulness to its declared values and to a constant defense of its Constitution. How far we have departed from those requirements, is how far we are from that republic. The Tories would be happy.

I like Frum's analysis because as usual he's willing to go after everyone to tell it like it is. This may not go to the courts, but I'll bet it probably will. You've nailed it in stating that the SCOTUS might be nervous...because this is a gray area and precisely the reason it should be in the debate.

If anything Bush increased the power of the Executive Branch during the last 8 years. Given the partisan climate is Obama doing the same or remiss in his duty if he doesn't?

Wouldn't even surprise me if this becomes an issue during the general election.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like Frum's analysis because as usual he's willing to go after everyone to tell it like it is. This may not go to the courts, but I'll bet it probably will. You've nailed it in stating that the SCOTUS might be nervous...because this is a gray area and precisely the reason it should be in the debate.

I don't see it as a gray area, rather it is a no area. When the Constitution does not grant a power to a branch of government, that branch does not have it. The Constitution expressly states in Article 1, section 5, that "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings . . . ." It does not speak of a judicial power of review over Congress's rules. That omission is not intended as a "gray" area that might be "interpreted" to imply that maybe the Court can review how Congress determines what is a recess, the omission means that it is not the business of either the Court or the President. The Constitution was not meant to be an endless list of minute laws that would encompass every "gray area" of how the government of our republic is structured. That would not be possible, nor desirable. It is a framework that grants limited specifed powers to the branches of government (separation of powers), and within, and only within, those limitations the powers are broad and can expand to unknown limits. The specific powers granted to the Court do not concern Congressional rules. The specific powers granted to Congress do. Likewise, those granted to the President defer to Congress and do not give him the power to define congressional rules. Article 2, section 3, does say that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them . . . he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper . . ." He did not do that, with good reason. Filling a vacancy is not an extraordinary occasion and the Senate has a Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Such an adjournment would clearly nullify the Senate's Constitutional obligation. Such an adjournment would be a precedent to forever eliminate that obligation and could not therefore be construed as a proper adjournment.

None of this is to say that if this was brought to the Court that it would refuse (as it should) to judge the matter for lack of standing. Nor can anyone predict, as is witnessed by what the Court has done over the last 75 years, how it would decide. And who would be the plaintiff? Congress, in my opinion, has the clearest case for Presidential overreach than vice versa. But who would bring it on behalf of Congress? Either party might want its President to have the power that Obama just snatched. If the Republicans are confident of winning the presidency this year, why would'nt they want to have such power? And why would the Obama justice dept. bring it. Does the Court entertain a plaintiff against itself?

If anything Bush increased the power of the Executive Branch during the last 8 years. Given the partisan climate is Obama doing the same or remiss in his duty if he doesn't?

Bush is just one of most Presidents that increased Executive power--singling him out is irrelevant, except that he understood that Congress had the power to recess as it wished, so he did not do what Obama has done when Congress recessed pro-forma. His appointments were blocked. Are you implying that it is the duty of the President to expand Executive power at the expense of Congress? How far should it go? Do you want an imperial presidency?

Wouldn't even surprise me if this becomes an issue during the general election.

-spence

Probably

[scottw]

note that "extreme acts" mentioned by Frum with respect to the Republicans were meant to block the growth and scope of the power of government and the "manuevers" are precedented however he wants to characterize them...
.........................

and "extreme acts" by the other side...

"creation of the CFPB itself. Normally, federal regulatory bodies have multiple commissioners, some reserved for the minority party. CFPB has only one commissioner who controls vast and hazy powers over all American finance.

As the CFPB's first head, Cordray would create precedents, define procedures -- and would do so without ever answering a question from Congress."

'Obama's decision to disregard the Senate's maneuvers and push through a Cordray recess appointment all the same -- basically telling the Senate: if you don't like, sue me.'

all unprecedented I think


who is "exteme"?

[detbuch]

To clarify my observation that the Court has no standing in this, I was referring to its lack of jurisdiction on how Congress sets its rules. I would guess that it does have jurisdiction on whether a branch of government steps outside its Constitutionally enumerated powers. So the only suit viable here is against the executive branch. Will that suit be brought? Who will bring it?

Paul S's contention that this is another reason to dislike our leaders is pointing out a grain of sand on the beach of Federal malfeasance. This is another transfer of power toward a centralized all-powrful exectutive system of government. Our national leaders, after having stolen more and more power from the States and the People, are now engaged in struggles against each other. If this is sued in court, we will have, as a result of this administration's actions, the Federal Gvt. (Executive branch) suing states and vice versa over immigration, the States suing the Federal Gvt. over power to mandate buying something, and Congress suing the Executive over trespassing its rights and obligations. The anti-Constitutional house of cards that the tripartite national government has created by circumventing and outright trashing of the Constitution is on the brink of collapsing. We have unsustainable Federal spending, warring branches of government, a nation that is more and more being governed by an administrative state of unelected technocrats rather than by self-governing citizens and their elected representatives, and a People who are becoming more dependant on this house of political cards. Why is the Constitution important rather than obsolete? Had We the People and our representatives been more jealous in defending it, such a state of affairs would not exist. Maybe, this is not only another reason to dislike our leaders, but a reason to dislike ourselves.

[Duke41]

Throw every one of these #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out of office. Then hang all lobbyists. We need to give this country back to ourselves.

[JohnR]

Term Limits.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Term Limits.

The office of President is term limited, but that has not stopped Presidents from gaining unwarranted power. The only thing that can stop politicians from acting as mini-dictators has been, to a great degree, term limited--the Constitution. It ruled by the hand of more faithful Supreme Court Judges, for the most part, over government for about 100 years. Then things began to change when "wiser" judges and politicians began to see that it was necessary to rule over us more strictly, centrally, and efficiently to become what they saw as a more perfect nation. Great heroes such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson gave us a new perspective on the beneficence of government, and the giant Franklin D. Roosevelt discovered how to unshackle government from Constitutional chains. The big government train has roared apace down the tracks of this central control ever since, picking up piece by piece remnants of local power along the way. We the People still honor the munificence of the New Deal, and the current President is giving us an even newer version. Apparently, we like the deal. "Backward looking extremists" want to make things difficult by squabling, using tactics and maneuvers, complaining about unconstitutional acts, etc. The racist Tea Baggers and "conservative" hicks just don't seem to realize that no-one of importance or modern awareness recognizes the Constitution as anything other than a historical document that is no longer "useful." They have, by discarding it, created a more perfectly wonderful union