Obama in Contempt of Congress

Wall Street Journal:

Remember those terrible days of the Imperial Presidency, when George W. Bush made several "recess appointments" to overcome Senate opposition? Well, Czar George II never did attempt what President Obama did yesterday in making recess appointments when Congress isn't even on recess.

 

Eager to pick a fight with Congress as part of his re-election campaign, Mr. Obama did the Constitutional equivalent of sticking a thumb in its eye and hitting below the belt. He installed Richard Cordray as the first chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and named three new members to the National Labor Relations Board. He did so even though the Senate was in pro forma session after the new Congress convened this week.

A President has the power to make a recess appointment, and we've supported Mr. Obama's right to do so. The Constitutional catch is that Congress must be in recess.

Mary Kissel on the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The last clause of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution says that "Neither House" of Congress can adjourn for more than three days "without the Consent of the other" house. In this case, the House of Representatives had not formally consented to Senate adjournment. It's true the House did this to block the President from making recess appointments, but it is following the Constitution in doing so. Let's hear Mr. Obama's legal justification.

Democrats had used a similar process to try to thwart Mr. Bush's recess appointments late in his term when they controlled both the House and the Senate. Prodded by West Virginia's Robert C. Byrd, who has since died, Majority Leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma session. Some advisers urged Mr. Bush to ignore the Senate and make recess appointments anyway, but he declined. Now Mr. Reid is supporting Mr. Obama's decision to make an end run around a Senate practice that he pioneered.

 

And there's more...

 

Comments

[Joel]

Yael I liked you comments on Sultan Knish's blog (Jan 5) re: the piling on of Rick Perry as "the pro sharia candidate".

[Yael]

Joel, I never thought that was fair, and I still don't, but I will never convince Daniel that he was wrong. In the scheme of things, it doesn't much matter anymore since Perry did himself so much harm in the debates. It's a shame, because I really don't like getting stuck with Santorum as the Non-Romney, any more than I like getting stuck with Romney as the Inevitable Electable. Maybe the next debate (Sat. night) will shake things up. again.

[Joel]

Yael I like Daniel Greenfield a lot but at times he is way too much the social conservative instead of the social libertarian which I am. That whole "Perry is a pro Sharia candidate" that the increasingly unstable Pamela Geller and her buddy Robert Spencer brought out that the Knish bought into was absolutely despicable. The fact that a guy at a debate lost his train of thought should not have sunk his campaign. The Bush Mafia lead by the flunky Karl Rove had it in for him because Perry correctly said that W. was not an economic conservative.