Was The Recess Appointment Of Richard Cordray Constitutional?

No votes yet

...doesn't the nomination have to be pending in order for it to be a recess appointment? I thought Cordray's was either rejected or pulled. Anyone know for sure?

The cloture vote failed and Cordray never withdrew his nomination, so the nomination was still pending.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I thought that under our new system, the constitution and the laws were not binding on the executive branch. GWB thumbed his nose at all of that, and here Obama is just following suit. I believe it's established legal opinion by some that the chief executive can kill just about anybody if he thinks that person is a terrorist -including American citizens. Citizens can be incarcerated indefinitely without counsel for suspicion of terrorism. The constitution is a dead letter these days. I believe it's been described as "quaint".

"Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Officers of the United States … but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone (and) … 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.”

Article 1, Section 5 says: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

Given these constitutional mandates, two questions were pertinent to Cordray’s appointment: Did Congress make the CFPB director an “inferior officer” the president could appoint without Senate confirmation? Was Congress in session on Jan. 4, when Obama made the appointment?

The Dodd-Frank law, which created the CFPB, specifically says “the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

On Jan. 4, the Senate did not have the “consent” of the House to adjourn as required by Article 1, Section 5. Congress was not in recess."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838464/posts

In a nutshell, the bill WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS said that the head of this new agency had to be approved by "the advice and consent of the Senate".
And the Constitution says that the House has to approve a recess of the Senate.
That was not done. The House did not approve a recess of the Senate, therefore the Senate was still in session and a recess appointment COULD NOT BE MADE because there was no Recess approved by the other branch of Congress.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Check your legal dictionary, or better yet the Rules of Parliamentary procedure. Recess is customarily a temporary halt to the proceedings -- a pause or time-out -- while an adjournment is done to end and/or close the legislative session -- or to physically move to another location like when a judge adjourns his/her court to reconvene at a crime scene to let a jury see the actual evidence.

They are close and often synonymous words, but have specific legal meanings -- as does much of the Constitution.

Really, LCBM! Quoting from that dog-eared document just doesn't cut it anymore. You have to understand that we are living in a new age where that stuff is applicable only to the rest of us, not to the Chief Executive. Where have you been for the past ten years? Quoting from that tired old scrap of paper will get you nowhere. The Chief Executive has become like God. Go ask any of the past three or four presidents. They'll confirm it.

OK Pete so lets all just lay down and accept it like mindless sheep. I see..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Right on Pete! The executive branch has grown far too powerful

Pink Slip

No matter the manner of his appointment, Richard Cordray is a man of unquestionable integrity. The bigger issue is trying to protect citizens against corporate fraud and deceit. Cordray is a level-headed, even-handed man who is perfect for this job. I would call him apolitical, truly wanting to serve the public. The objectors were so not more against Cordray himself than they were for the continued fleecing of the public.

Patience is a great virtue.

Either way the next GOP President will have a lot of fun with a GOP congress. This president has set precedent that wasn't previously set. The Dems used the nuclear option, they appoint people even while Senate is in session, hell they even get to detain American citizens just by being suspected of terrorism.

I can hear a GOP President now when the libs start whining all he'll say is "I'm not doing anything that other Presidents on the other side of the aisle haven't done already."

And all this came from the Most Transparent Presidency IN HISTORY!

MikeyA

We have the NDAA, the appointments without sessions, but don't forget about the other key to the agenda The UN and Kyoto treaties, these international treaties override the constitution as well. This whole global warming hoax equals global control. The sheep that believe carbon dioxide causes warming are closed minded sheep indeed, carbon dioxide is life. How about thinking out of the propaganda box and let’s see maybe the SUN could be the cause.....

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I don't see why people are getting their britches up in a knot over this. This President and previous ones violate and have violated the constitution and laws endlessly. GWB broke the law; LBJ broke the law; Reagan broke the law; Nixon certainly broke the law and paid for it. We have allowed this shit to go on for decades with barely a whimper. Now it's a big deal. Why?

Why didn't we get involved when the Patriot Act was passed, a law that took away our rights? Why wasn't there an outcry when we learned that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed on lies and falsehoods and cost us uptydump billions and tens of thousands of lives? Why didn't we get pissed off when we invaded Iraq!

This is small potatoes you guys are worrying with. The big picture passed you all by a long time ago and you didn't even notice. You're like the guy who frets about having a hole in his sock when he doesn't have any shoes.