We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
Obama has his heart set on having Elizabeth Warren run his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I can't comment on Professor Warren's qualifications, but I do know that her appointment requires Senate confirmation. The reason I know that is because the Dodd-Frank Act says that the Director of the new bureau shall be appointed by the President "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Which also happens to be the constitutionally-prescribed method of appointing "Officers of the United States."
But apparently the administration doesn't think they can get Warren through the Senate. So instead Obama has appointed Warren to a position that is technically a subordinate role within Treasury, but which is intended -- as Obama himself made clear -- to run the whole shebang.
How outrageous is this? So outrageous that the editorial boards of both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have run almost identical editorials lambasting the administration. Again, I have no particular brief against Warren. But I do wish that our Law Professor-in Chief would take a stab at obeying the law, especially a law for which he claims paternity.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
As much as I hope the Republicans we vote into Congress in November will be admirable, I also hope the Democrats voted in will not be the sort who think the end justifies the means. It would be nice if we could at least rely on politicians to respect the process.
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
Besides the fact that the GOP should call for a hearing to investigate this selection process, we are witnessing the latest of Obama's belief in expertocracy, rule by people he thinks are smart (including himself.) Take a look at what this woman wrote in 2007. She believes her commission can provide "nuanced regulatory responses" in lieu of legislative action. What she fails to see is that the legislature faces an electoral check while her commission would not. (How ironic she publishes this in the journal Democracy.)
Jun '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
King, you obviously think that the people know something about how they want to be dictated to. Given your attitude, all I can do is warn you that come the revolution you are sure to be sent to a re-education camp for an attitude adjustment.
Aug '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
This is in keeping with the whole setup of the new CFPB, with its independence and budget not overseen by Congress.
Frankly, I have little patience with the desire to remove `politics' from government operations and decisions. For all its petty messiness, politics and political accountability are the only means that a free and self-governing people possess to control their government. Every move to place something `above politics' is a step towards tyranny.
When an agency can approve itself a budget of $646 million dollars of taxpayer money with little or no Congressional input, how is this not taxation without representation?
Edited on Sep 18, 2010 at 9:05pmJul '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
It seems to me that GW Bush did the same thing when he appointed Bolton to something or other at the UN... am I correct?
I think the entire political class ought to be made to read the constitution and memorize it, and recite it, on TV or YouTube. THEN they will be allowed to do their jobs of lawmaking.
urk. Did I say law 'making.'
May '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
Well, this is all so that the guys don't have to be criticized for another recess appointment; just skip the whole confirmation idea instead. The only answer is for Congress to never recess, but also never vote except to remove laws.
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
heathermc: It seems to me that GW Bush did the same thing when he appointed Bolton to something or other at the UN... am I correct?
I think the entire political class ought to be made to read the constitution and memorize it, and recite it, on TV or YouTube. THEN they will be allowed to do their jobs of lawmaking.
urk. Did I say law 'making.' · Sep 18 at 8:55pm
Heather, I think the Bolton appointment was a recess appointment, whereas what Adam is talking about is an appointment to a "subordinate" position that doesn't require Senate confirmation,... but the person will be allowed to run operations from that subordinate position. It's an end-run around even the recess appointment process, and utterly shameless.
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
Dave, that's exactly right. Recess appointments are permissible under the Constitution. But this type of appointment is off the charts. And it fits into Obama's pattern of ruling through unconfirmed "czars." Contrary to what the administration seems to think, the "advice and consent" clause was not mere window dressing, it was an important American political tradition that had evolved from earlier colonial charters and state constitutions.
PS: as ever, Duane has the most sensible solution!
May '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
For what it's worth, I've seen this same strategy employed in the Dept. of Education where controversial (nay radical) non-confirmed appointees were given the more substantial portfolios, including policy and rule-making, and Senate-confirmed officers were sent to give speeches to schoolchildren.
Jul '10
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Advice and Consent!
I confess I find the constitutional argument a little strange, Adam. The statute explicitly gives the President the right to make this appointment. Other statutes explicitly give him the right to appointment assistants to the President within the Executive Office of the President. Are you arguing that the statute violates the Appointments Clause? Given the Bush Administration's extraordinary abuse of signing statements, however, the new-found conservative skepticism of executive power is at least refreshing.
For what it's worth, here's one place where most of the folks here and a Liberal Troll like myself might agree on: filibuster reform. At the very least, appointments to executive branch offices should not be subject to filibuster. That would make it difficult for the Senate Republican caucus to filibuster Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Everything, as they are doing now, and is probably the reason for Obama's move, but it would also prevent the Dems from doing it under a Republican President. And I think that that would be good for everyone.