Even New York Times writers Helen Cooper and Jennifer Steinhauer dub political the president’s decision yesterday to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and one to a new “consumer” agency:
President Obama touched off a fierce election-year confrontation with Congressional Republicans on Wednesday, defying their deep opposition to appoint Richard Cordray as director of a new consumer protection agency and fill three labor board vacancies.
The decision to install the four nominees without Senate approval under the constitutional provision for making appointments when lawmakers are in recess was a provocative opening salvo in Mr. Obama’s re-election strategy of demonizing Congress. It threatened to ignite a legal challenge and left Republicans fuming that the president was abusing the recess privilege.
Emphasis added. So, the president is fitting his official powers into his electoral strategy.
Now three out of five members of the powerful NLRB take office before the Senate, as the Framers intended, had a chance to scrutinize their rhetoric. Seems someone is trying to rally an important Democratic constituency (i.e., labor unions). Not just that, the Times writers add, “The recess appointments seemed deliberately timed, coming a day after the Iowa caucus vote and seemed intended to rile the Republicans.”
For, this guy it’s all about riling the Republicans.
Times staff may find the Senate in recess, but others disagree. John Hinderaker doesn’t mince words: “Obama took his war against Congress to a new level, announcing four “recess appointments” when the Senate was not, in fact, in recess.” The lawyer show why the Senate was not in recess and reminds us that as recently as 2010, even administration lawyers shared that view. (Read the whole thing.)
Glenn Reynolds has a nice mini-roundup here.
Seems the guy who was supposed to transcend partisan politics just loves playing partisan politics.
UPDATE: “Why,” Allahpundit asks, “would O risk a constitutional confrontation with Congress over something as minor as the NLRB or his new consumer board? Why, for the same reason he does everything: Because it might help him get re-elected.”
FROM THE COMMENTS: V the K quips, “Well, this is not what democracy looks like at all. I am sure OWS and Rachel Maddow will be all over this anti-democracy power grab.” I’m sure she savaged the appointments on her show last night.
RELATED: Obama Chooses Politics Over Principle in Naming Cordray (H/t: RealClearPolitics)
Not to mention that this is another action to add to his long list of impeachable offenses.
Doesn’t Obama remind you of Ronald Reagan? A uniter, a representative of all the people in the country and not just a minority of people that support him? I know he’s already won the Nobel peace prize but do you think it’s too late to have him canonized? Don’t bloodthirsty dictators deserve a saint they can pray to? Couldn’t we put a big pair of ears on George Washington’s likeness on Mount Rushmore and make it Obama? Let’s rename all 57 states and call them all “Obamaland.” Let’s get rid of that old yellowed Constitution and replace it with 2000 pages of Obamacare and enshrine it in the Smithsonian. At the very least all you selfish bastards could consider renaming the sun to Obama so that we could be reminded every day that the world revolves around him.
Well, this is not what democracy looks like at all. I am sure OWS and Rachel Maddow will be all over this anti-democracy power grab.
Yes sir, I bet they’ll get right on it.
I question the idea of crediting Obama himself with this manipulation.
Obama has yet to impress me as anything more than a fairly bright chucklehead.
The strategy he is employing comes from outside of the space between his generous sized ears. He is the messenger. He can’t even be trusted to carry the message, so he reads it from the teleprompter.
He is clever enough to manhandle the occasional interview by giving wandering lecture type answers and playing out the clock, all the while saying not much of anything.
Axlerod was very visible, Daley is all but invisible. Podesta is not even on the radar. Andy Stern half lives at the White House. Valerie Jarrett’s job of Chairing the White House Council on Women and Girls probably leaves her sufficient time to do “other” things.
Obama does not speak on a lot of important things. He plays golf, vacations and hangs out with a tight circle of friends who are not politicians or part of the team. When he goes forth, it is to deliver boiler plate to his base. He might just as well spend his time playing with this toy trains.
His useful qualities are that he is a good puppet and he pretty much carries off the job. He has not revealed any core convictions and has very successfully continued to vote “present” as president. Meanwhile, Congress has been manhandled and the system of checks and balances has been steamrolled and Obama’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found.
Barack Hussein Obama is the Conduit in Chief.
Lets examine ALL the facts.
The ploy of not going into recess and remaining in session “Pro Forma” with the explicit purpose of denying the President the ability to appoint recess positions, a completely Constitutional action, was first employed against G W Bush by Senate Democrats / Harry Reid in 2007.
Though his legal team DID advise him to go ahead and make the appointments, Bush declined to do so (but he’s stupid don’t you know). One of those lawyers wrote an op-ed condemning the practice here
I haven’t confirmed it yet, but I’m willing to bet that Republicans at the time thought the Democrats “Pro Forma” strategy to block the President from using a CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED POWER, to steal a line from ex-Senator Tom Daschle, “OUTRAGEOUS!”
Note that the 10 day standard is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; that Theodore Roosevelt President Theodore Roosevelt once made recess appointments during an intra-session recess of less than one day, and that the 10 day standard has been a courtesy of restraint employed by the Presidency for only the last twenty years or so.
If he wanted to, the President could have acted to adjourn the Senate, as per the powers granted to him in Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution…. But he didn’t need to in this case.
This Republican”Outrage” just for show. You guys don’t care about the Constitution at all. you’re frauds!
It’s all about power for both partys. This whole phony controversy is complete Bullshit! I can’t stand President Obama most of the time, but, in this case, and it pains me to say it, he’s right to exercise his Constitutional rights.
And yes, this whole thing, coupled with the stupidity of the payroll tax fiasco over the Christmas break, really has me pissed off.
Sonic,
Is it a fact that no President has ever used the power to adjourn the Senate?
I too am seriously disgusted with the vast majority of business as usual Republican professional politicians who don’t have any intent of messing with their meal ticket.
However, just for my edification, where else am I going to go to vote?
My enthusiasm for the TEA Party is in the hope that it can eclipse the Republican establishment and take the party over. That said, the sirens of Washington beltway power can lure nearly anyone up on the rocks of personal corruption.
As far as I know, no one has. But the power is there.
Obama thinks this will get him re-elected? All it is doing is ticking people off wih him. Not to mention, them getting ticked off with the Senate for doing nothing about it.
If he wanted to, the President could have acted to adjourn the Senate, as per the powers granted to him in Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution…. But he didn’t need to in this case.
So what you’re saying is that the President has unlimited power in all situations to adjourn Congress and keep it adjourned until such time as the President wants it back.
Furthermore, according to your interpretation of the Constitution, the President is the only one who truly has the power to convene and to adjourn Parliament…..I mean, Congress.
That’s a new interpretation.
I haven’t confirmed it yet, but I’m willing to bet that Republicans at the time thought the Democrats “Pro Forma” strategy to block the President from using a CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED POWER, to steal a line from ex-Senator Tom Daschle, “OUTRAGEOUS!”
Actually, let me give you a better example of how noted “constitutional scholar” Barack Obama and his Obama Party were, at the time, stating that recess appointments were completely unconstitutional, among other things.
But what’s your excuse now?
The ploy of not going into recess and remaining in session “Pro Forma” with the explicit purpose of denying the President the ability to appoint recess positions, a completely Constitutional action, was first employed against G W Bush by Senate Democrats / Harry Reid in 2007.
Though his legal team DID advise him to go ahead and make the appointments, Bush declined to do so (but he’s stupid don’t you know).
Oh, so Obama is completely justified in doing something because Bush did it, even though Bush didn’t.
So you really don’t have an argument, Sonic. You just have a repeat of the Obama talking points that “Bush did it”, which even you admit are false.
Are you an Obama bigot too? Or is your problem more a matter of needing proof, no matter how tenuous, that Republicans are to blame for everything?
Obama’s meltdown continues apace; this will not end well for the wannabe dictator Obama.
No NDT, you’re all full of complete shit! Both the idiot left and right will deride something until they themselves are in power, then, well, that horrible thing is perfectly OK to do.
In your link, Mitch McConnell says this:
Are you going to argue that past Presidents have not placed persons in various positions via recess without the Senate having vetted that person first?
Hint – Earl Warren and William Brennen come to mind. The Constitutionality of their appointments despite the lack of a Senate vetting procedure was never questioned. It’s not usual, but it’s not unheard of either. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate must vet or approve a recess at the time of the recess appointment.
Article 2, Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution:
Period.
You said this:
I love it when you try that lame debate trick – It’s about as effective as Al Gores inconvenient cough. Nowhere in my comment did I say the President is the only one who can do this. But, as I pointed out he can do so if he deems it necessary, as is written in Article 2 Section 3 Clause 2, which states:
Period.
And you support a fraudulent Harry Reid derived trick to circumvent the ability of the President provided by the Constitution to make recess appointment. I love it!
You are a CINO, a Constitutionalist In Name Only. You are a fraud as a Constitutional Conservative.
Chicago ward thug politics at its best. We don’t care about the Constitution. I am more imperative than that outdated document.
Are you going to argue that past Presidents have not placed persons in various positions via recess without the Senate having vetted that person first?
No. I’m going to let you build that particular strawman rather than answering what I pointed out, which was your attempt to insist that Obama’s actions are justified because “Bush did it” when you in fact have already admitted that Bush did nothing of the sort.
Which then leads us into this.
An ability which was meant to be used when Congress was actually in recess, as a temporary measure.
I tend to go with Bush’s interpretation, which is, yes, it’s annoying what Reid did, but it’s also Constitutional and it’s also respecting the separation of powers between the branches.
What Obama did is clearly unconstitutional, as has been already pointed out from multiple sources across the political spectrum. If the best you can try to do is argue that Bush’s lawyers told him he could and he didn’t, then you’re on very thin ice indeed — and exposing the fact that you hold Bush and Republicans to a standard that you never would presume applying to Obama.
Let’s see now.
– I support Congress’s power to enter and adjourn session with no interference from the President
– I support the President’s power to make temporary appointments when Congress is in recess
You, on the other hand, insist that the President, rather than Congress, has the ultimate power to determine whether or not they will be in session and can form and dissolve them at will with no check on this power.
You also insist that the President has the absolute power to make recess appointments whether Congress is in session or not.
I think I’m on much sturdier Constitutional ground than you are. My viewpoint respects separation of powers; yours insists that the executive is all powerful, even to the point of being able to dissolve Congress and rule independently.
Are you an idiot, or just playing one on TV? I did not say “Bush Did It”, did I????
No.
I did not say “Bush Did It”. I noted this:
What I pointed out is that Bush’s legal team, the same one you so rigorously defend when it comes to extraordinary rendition, said the Senates’ actions in creating a Pro Forma session are bogus and extra Constitutional.
Bush didn’t do it! That cannot be more clear. But, as is the usual, this is the typical type of dishonesty from which you consistently try and best your debating opponent.
Well. Sorry. It won’t work here.
For someone who blathers on and on about strawmen, you sure do use a lot of them. Bush should have challenged Reid and the Senate on this when they tried it. But he played nice. So be it.
What the House and Senate are doing is an abuse of power. It was true when the Harry Reid Senate used the same tactic against President Bush, and it is no different when the Republicans do it against this President. The Congress, just as it was when Reid held the Pro Forma sessions, was first to violate the separation of powers. This whole thing stinks to high heaven, and reveals the blatant hypocrisy on both sides of the isle.
Which makes all your attempts to justify what Obama did based on “Republicans” pretty much dead and moot.
Meanwhile, it appears your argument that the President may dissolve Congress at will and rule by fiat is getting traction over at the Washington Post in the comments, where the Obama supporters are insisting that Congress must be overruled and ignored if it doesn’t do what Obama wants, anjd that Obama should dissolve Congress and rule by fiat.
You are completely missing the point in your attempt to blame Bush and Republicans for what your Obama did, Sonic. Furthermore, your insistence that the President can unilaterally dissolve Congress and rule by fiat is flagrantly unconstitutional.