Follow us on Twitter

Click here to see our latest updates on Twitter!

Be first to know

Click here to subscribe to our RSS feed!

01.02.2012 in Congress, Politics, Senate by Rebecca DiFede 8

Senate should block all nominations until fake ‘recess’ appointments resign

By Rebecca DiFede — Why does the Senate put up with so much abuse?

On Jan. 4, much to the surprise of Congress, President Obama made four supposed “recess” appointments — three to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) — without confirmation by the Senate.

The Constitution specifically states that in order for the president to make a recess appointment, the Senate must actually be in recess and therefore unable to accept nominations. At such a time it is the president’s duty to fill any vacancies during the Senate’s absence with recess appointments.

However, as it turns out, the Senate was not in recess. There were still plenty of officers left to take nominations, and since three of the appointees hadn’t even completed the mandatory Senate questionnaire prior to their appointment, the entire process was entirely illegal on the part of the president.

The wording in the Constitution is quite clear about the rules for Houses going into “recess” and the corresponding “recess” appointments. President Obama’s blatant disregard for this “advice and consent” clause sets a dangerous precedent for his possible second term.

If Obama is acting this way so close to election day, what is there to stop him from continuing to flagrantly pick and choose which laws he plans on following should he be reelected? Having to never again face the wrath of the voters, he would then be free to act unhindered for another four years.

By doing this, he is confidently telling the voters that he can appoint anyone to any position, at any time, without the consent of the Senate.

And the Senate should not put up with it any longer.

In a letter released on Tuesday by Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson and over 50 other organization leaders, Wilson encouraged Senators to “use your standing as members of the Senate to prevent the consideration and approval of any further nominations unless and until President Obama secures the resignations of the individuals he unconstitutionally appointed earlier this month.”

Only if there is a price to pay for Obama’s flagrant violation of the Constitution will it this be put to a stop.

The president’s disregard for the rule of law is deplorable to say the least, and causes quite a concern for the future. Hopefully the Senate will heed Wilson’s warning and force Obama to reconcile what he’s done and succumb to the system of checks and balances that are instrumental to the success of America.

Rebecca DiFede is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government.

Related Articles
  • Harry Meanwell

    Separation of Powers goes out the window when we ‘promote’ a member of Congress to the White House. No better proof than The Odministration. It’s the same reason sharks don’t eat lawyers — professional courtesy.

  • Jwatersphd

    As usual, you start your argument missing a substantial amount of background. The Republicans had already blocked all nominations for programs they don’t like, even if, like the one to head the consumer protection board, no one could say anything bad about him. So, what, realistically, was he supposed to do? What they demanded was that they eviscerate and emasculate the agency, which, of course, he couldn’t do because the law was already passed. The agency can’t run without a head, the Republicans said, “you’re not getting a head for the agency because we don’t agree that consumer protection is a good idea.” So hop down off the outrage platform and put the blame where it lies – with Congress itself. By the way, you’re hardly the one to judge whether what he did was unconstitutional or not. Guess what? We have courts for that. If someone wants to take it to court, we shall see whether it is or isn’t. Until then, it’s merely the only option he had, so why not be straight about it?

  • Barney

    It will go to the courts, of course at astronomical cost to us the taxpayers.  How can you spew such a perverse view of the constitution?  Checks and balances are exactly that.  If the president appoints an individual that congress deems substandard, for whatever reason, they deny the appointment.  You support the “screw em” attitude of “I’ll just do it on my own”  I bet your tune would be different if a republican president had done half of what this traitor has done.

  • Jwatersphd

    Barney, I think you just didn’t read my post. They did not “deem” the nominee for the consumer protection bureau substandard, they simply refused to consider him with the explanation that the law was too rigorous and they wanted a promise it would not be applied as written in order to approve ANYONE. The have done this before, and they plan to do it again. My tune would not be different if a Republican president did it. I would, again, see it as the only reasonable response to a Congress that frankly says, “we’re not going to do what we are supposed to do, which is to pass on the merits of the appointee.” Instead, we are not going to approve any nominees. What exactly do you propose? just not let the agency function? Their attitude is exactly what you decry, which is to say, “we’ll just render the law ineffective on our own by not approving any nominee, regardless of merit.” There was no problem with the nominee submitted, by their own admission. 

  • Louande

    You are dealing with the symptoms instead of the actual disease.  The founding fathers had to reconcile three different entities when they came up with the Constitution: the people, the states, and the federal government.  The powers that be (PTB) wanted a strong federal government, but since at the time of our founding the states held the power, what we got was a Constitution that limited the power of the federal government.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that is easier to control one entity than several, so the PTB (the ones with the bucks) have always worked to diminish the power of the states and the people.  First order of things, create two political parties and keep them at odds.  Then dumb down the people, not hard to do for the one holding the microphone.  Once enough people are where you want them, use them to go after the states.  That’s how the PTB got the 17th Amendment into the Constitution.  Once the states are out of the way, buy enough senators to do the dirty work.  In other words, those senators that go along with the PTB get the bucks for reelection.  Then use these senators to whip the others into shape.  Again, go along with the leaders and you get money for re-election.  Then use the senators to form a central bank appearing to be controlled by the federal government but in reality it is controlled by the PTB (Federal Reserve System).  Finally, use the central bank to transfer the wealth of the country to the PTB while at the same time keep the pretense of an independent Senate, President. 

    The leaders of the House of Representatives are also controlled by the PTB, but the House is harder to control due to the two-year term and the relative large number of representatives; but make no mistake the House is also in the hands of the PTB.

    Of course it has not been as simple as I stated above.  It has taken over two hundred years and there have been many obstacles for the PTB, but they have accomplished much of what they are after.

    It is not difficult to see then that the Senate will do absolutely nothing meaningful to interfere with Obama’s recent appointment.  The republicans may not like it, and they will bitch and moan, but that is all.  The Constitution doesn’t come into play except when the PTB need it or very rarely when the people or the states may get the upper hand for a little while.

  • Fox2!

    The Senate should immediately bring these nominations to the floor and overwhelmingly reject them. 

  • Dean

    The senate members are democrats and RINO’s that kiss Obama’s backside.  A bunch of pansies.  Why isn’t the election scheduled for tomorrow.  That may even be too late.

  • Jwatersphd

    Many interesting points here, thanks for your contribution. However, I don’t quite follow your analysis in terms of the issue in question. They were already blocking the appointments he made. We also already have minority rule; the 40% at this point call the shots since nothing can be done as they will filibuster everything – not just the intolerable issues but everything. How would having Senators elected by the legislatures change either of these situations? It’s also said that if that had been the case there would never have been the so called republican revolution of 1994 (you know, the contract on america).  

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2012 NetRight Daily