Debate Club

Is the Cordray Appointment Constitutional? >

Obama's Power Grab Sets Precedent Democrats Will Regret

What's next? Appointing executive branch officials when the Senate is taking a lunch or bathroom break?

January 6, 2012

About John Berlau:

John Berlau is director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is the author of the book Eco-Freaks, which has been in Amazon's top 100 best-selling non-fiction books.

What's next? Appointing executive branch officials when the Senate is taking a lunch or bathroom break?

[Join the debate on Facebook.]

In November 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the Senate in pro forma session for the two-week Thanksgiving break. Every three days, a handful of senators would gavel the Senate into session and gavel it out just a few minutes later. These pro forma sessions would continue until the end of George W. Bush's presidency in January 2009. Republicans were furious at this deliberate ploy to keep Bush from making recess appointments by never declaring a formal recess.

Yet it was widely regarded as the Senate's constitutional prerogative to declare when it was and was not it recess. As noted by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and reported by Politico, Bush "made no recess appointments between [Democrats'] initial pro forma sessions in November 2007 and the end of his presidency." The view that presidents could not make appointments during pro forma sessions also seemed to be the Obama administration's position when then-Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the Supreme Court in 2010, "I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days."

[Senate Left Obama With No Choice Over Richard Cordray Appointment.]

But now, by taking it upon himself to declare the Senate in "recess," when per agreement with the GOP-led House it was again in pro forma session, President Obama has made an executive power grab that is unconstitutional and unprecedented. Even Teddy's Roosevelt's constitutionally questionable appointments cited as antecedent occurred in the brief interval between two official sessions of Congress in 1903. But President Obama did not avail himself of this option when he had such an opportunity between sessions on January 3. Instead he made the appointments upon going to a political rally the next day, using only the thin justification that no senators were on the floor.

Democrats now cheering Obama's action will rue it when the time comes--perhaps in the not too distant future--that there is a Republican president and Democrats control one or both houses. If the president can make "recess" appointments any time the Senate is not occupying the floor, what's next? Appointing executive branch officials when the Senate is taking a lunch or bathroom break?

[Richard Cordray Recess Appointment Sparks More Bickering.]

Ironically, Obama justified the appointments of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the three members of the National Labor Relations Board as necessary to ensure "accountability" of the private sector. But lack of accountability in government doesn't seem to bother this president.

Tags:
consumers,
Congress,
republican party,
Barack Obama,
Obama administration
Other Arguments
#1

No — Constitution is clear on the Cordray matter; the president's actions must not stand

PHIL KERPEN, Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity

#2

No — Obama's purported recess appointments are unconstitutional and unprecedented

ELIZABETH GARVEY, Legal Policy Analyst in the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal & Judicial Studies

#4
#5

Yes — President right to appoint Cordray, block Republican assault on the rule of law

IAN MILLHISER, Policy Analyst with the Center for American Progress and Editor of ThinkProgress Justice

#6

Yes — Few are raising the objection that Richard Cordray is unqualified for the post

REID CRAMER, Director of the Asset Building Program at the New America Foundation

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

We the people elected Gore, the Supreme Court put Bush in office. None of his appointments were constitutional. The Democrats did not abuse the filibuster anywhere as much as the Republicans. Their use of the filibusterer is what is unprecedented. Bush not calling the Democrat's bluff, does not change the Constitution. Bush and Obama both had the authority to make recess appointments during the pro forma sessions. The difference is Obama is smarter than Bush.

Jill of MN 7:40PM January 08, 2012

This argument fails to take into account two particular facts.

1) The Republicans are refusing to provide advice and consent for the open position. They are not refusing to allow a particular nomination to go through, which would arguably be advice and certainly a lack of consent for a given nominee. Rather they are saying that they want the position to be open so that the agency cannot carry out the function that Congress declared by passing the Dodd-Frank law, which was signed by the president.

2) Not only is the Senate being kept from recess by pro forma sessions in which absolutely no business is being carried out, which means for all intents and purposes the Senate is indeed on recess (and was as well when the Democrats did it), but there will be no business carried out, and thus no ability to advise or consent, until the Senate actually reconvenes in several weeks.

The purpose of the Constitutional power given to the president to recess appoint is to fill positions which otherwise would be left vacant for a long time thus preventing important duties from being fulfilled. Taking these points together, I argue that the pro forma sessions should constitute a recess, and moreover that by making a recess appointment President Obama is executing his power in precisely the spirit in which it was intended.

Todd Gillette of VA 1:18AM January 07, 2012

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.


Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.


You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Scott Walker's Union Fight Helps Mitt Romney Against Barack Obama

The Wisconsin governor refuses to back down from his opposition to collective bargaining.

Why Is It Only Women Who Need 'Informing' on Reproductive Health?

Men's sexual behavior could also use some "controlling."

Advertisement