More

Richard Cordray Nomination: Obama Recess Appointments Under Legal Cloud

Richard Cordray Recess Appointment

Posted: 01/05/12 09:57 AM ET

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could become entangled in a legal battle over its legitimacy, though history and the Constitution appear to favor him, experts said.

The White House said on Wednesday Obama would use his constitutional authority to install Cordray while Congress was not in session, drawing anger and criticism from rival Republicans who insisted Congress was not in formal recess.

While the Senate resumes lawmaking only on January 23, it has been holding brief non-legislative "proforma" sessions every three days to try to keep Obama from making recess appointments without its consent. The last, on Tuesday, was for a minute; the next is on Friday.

Infuriated Republicans denounced Obama's action on Wednesday as unprecedented, but history shows similar appointments were made during the presidencies of both Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Theodore Roosevelt.

White House lawyers determined the Senate was in recess as long as it was not conducting legislative business and Obama could therefore move ahead with Cordray's appointment under the Constitution, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said. He said this was also the view during the George W. Bush administration.

Also on Wednesday, Obama announced plans to "recess-appoint" three members to the National Labor Relations Board, potentially raising issues for that agency as well.

While Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell assailed the "uncertain legal territory" of the presidential action, it seemed unlikely the issue would be resolved anytime soon in the courts. Legal challenges of agency decisions often take months, if not years.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fiercely opposed creation of the consumer protection bureau, said it would not rule out a legal challenge to Cordray's appointment and it could weigh heavily on future actions by the watchdog.

"One of the lawyers we consulted on this said 'if you are bringing a suit on a rule against this agency and you didn't raise this issue you could be charged with legal malpractice,'" said David Hirschmann, head of the group's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

Cordray told Reuters he was ready to get down to work and would not be distracted by possible legal challenges. "I can't be distracted by that," he told Reuters after flying to Cleveland on Air Force One with Obama.

NOMINATION BATTLE

The battle over nominations dates back to the Bush administration when Democrats kept the Senate in similar "proforma" sessions to try to block recess appointments by the Republican president, not leaving for more than three days.

Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives and Senate must agree on any recess lasting longer than three days.

Republicans who control the House have blocked any longer breaks in hopes that would prevent appointments by Obama.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a report last month the Constitution did not specify how long the Senate must be away for recess appointments to be made but Republicans pointed to a 1993 Justice Department legal brief that said they had to be away longer than three days.

One law professor said that brief wrongly referred to the constitutional requirement that the two chambers have the approval from one another to break for more than three days and that the courts will likely be hesitant to intervene now.

"There is no minimum time needed to trigger the president's recess appointment authority," said Catholic University Columbus School of Law professor Victor Williams, adding that he doubted the courts would look favorably on a legal challenge.

"The courts are very reluctant to second guess the political branches when a duty has been given to political branches, explicitly, textually by the Constitution," he said.

The congressional report found two examples of appointments made during recesses of less than three days, though they were done after Congress completed a session and before they began the next one.

President Theodore Roosevelt made some 160 appointments in 1903 when Congress was gone for less than a day, and the Truman administration made one appointment in 1949 when the Senate was gone for two days, the report said.

"As far as can be determined, no succeeding president has made recess appointments under similar circumstances," the CRS report said. "The shortest recess during which appointments have been made during the past 20 years was 10 days."

Republicans also pointed to an Obama administration official referring to the three-day recess precedent in a legal argument before the Supreme Court, but the justices did not address that issue and were rather focused on the legitimacy of decisions by a government agency that did not have a quorum of members.

One banking industry consultant noted that with Cordray's appointment, it may speed legal challenges to the financial regulatory reform law known as Dodd-Frank.

"The issue is not so much Cordray, or whoever is the director, but the CFPB itself and some of the powers it has been given under Dodd-Frank," said Bert Ely.

(Additional reporting by David Henry in New York, Matt Spetalnick aboard Air Force One, Alexandra Alper and Richard Cowan in Washington. Editing by Howard Goller and Todd Eastham)

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
By Jeremy Pelofsky WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could become entangled in a legal battle over its legitim...
By Jeremy Pelofsky WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could become entangled in a legal battle over its legitim...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 245
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:04 PM on 01/06/2012
While everyone is still arguing over the dogmatic left/right paradigm, I personally take issue with any president who says, "I refuse to take no for an answer," irrespective of whatever decision they're making.
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
06:05 PM on 01/06/2012
What about a political Party who's only answer is 'no?'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
08:11 AM on 01/07/2012
The Republicans proudly stood up to Obama's far left progressive agenda.

We live in a Republic where the majority rule democracy is intended to keep us in the middle ground.

Sadly the zealots on both sides are hogging too much attention.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Madbunny
Prison Guard - FireFighter - now a School Teacher
01:23 AM on 01/08/2012
The CFPB was created by Congress. The President has a Constitutional duty to fill vacancies.
It's essentially the largest part of being President.

The fact that the GOP has declared that they will obstruct *any* nomination to the CFPB strongly implies that they do not intend to let him carry out his constitutionally designated duties.

The party you have a problem with is the 'party of no'.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:41 AM on 01/06/2012
Yup. The Nazis always expected the Americans to play fair, too.

It’s time to play to win. I’ll take anything like this when it’s being done by the only Presidential candidate who has more than trace elements of his soul left.

That Tea are crying about this, after holding the nation’s credit rating hostage, driving unemployment through the roof to unseat the first black President, questioning the President’s citizenship – a problem all white Presidents have had and you can lookitup – and stonewalling consumer protection from the rich under the guise of actually being at work, says all one needs to know.

Hardball time, Tea. Hardball time.
08:33 AM on 01/06/2012
Professor Williams may be correct that the Court would attempt to avoid deciding this squabble (e.g. by ruling on standing, mootness etc.) between the executive and legislative branches. However, he is out in left field to suggest that Obama's actions are on constitutional ground.

First, for most of our history recess appointments were made during inter not intra sessions of Congress. In fact, that is most likely the intent of the clause. When the constitution was originally passed Congress was often out of session for long periods e.g. 6 to 9 months (the good old days). Intra session appointments are a relatively new phenomena and one which a Court would have less sympathy for the executive in any argument

Second, and more importantly, pro forma sessions, although short, does mean the Senate is in session. It is unlikely any court would rule by law that Congress must be in session for a certain period of time to be considered "in session". They would simply have no basis for deciding that time frame and they would leave it up to Congress to decide.

On the other hand, its unlikely a Court would declare there is no minimum time for Congress to be out of session for a recess appointment to be effective. If there was no time period, a President could make midnight appointments every night and effectively bypass the Senate's advice and consent role
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
08:16 AM on 01/07/2012
Excellent post. I hope the reasoning here motivates the Senate and the House to act accordingly to challenge the appointments.

Almost any law professor that teaches the Constitution should recognize the reasonableness and correctness of your observations ... everyone except the former adjunct professor of constitutional law who is now, sadly, sitting in the oval office.
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
11:49 AM on 01/07/2012
If there's no Quorum, there's no Session.
Two or three Republican'ts playing Charades does Not equal a session of Congress.
12:42 PM on 01/07/2012
Putting aside the fact that the Democrats used the same technique to block Bush's recess appointments (with Senator Obama's approval) you are wrong as a matter of law.

First, you only need a quorum to do business. It is an open question as to whether the lack of a quorum would constitute the Senate being out of session.

Second and more importantly the Senate by rule presumes there is a quorum unless there is a quorum call (a vote to prove otherwise). Thus until such a vote is taken (and it won't happen unless the Democrats come back to town) there is a quorum.

Third, you miss the bigger point. It is presumably ok for the Senate to set a rule for determining when it is in session ( provided its constitutional) however, that rule must be determined by the Senate not the President.
06:43 PM on 01/05/2012
http://alphapatriot.com/flashback-obama-on-bush-recess-appointments/

Hey, if you got a problem with it?? He can always detain you as a "terr or1st" which Big Sis has already said most likely will be ex-vets, in pick up trucks, and own a gun. On John Bolton:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,†said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.â€
02:49 PM on 01/05/2012
It takes only a pea-brain to realize that these appointments are to placate the UNions--Obama's voting block. Okay, when your prices go sky high and we're all struggling to buy ANYTHING and jobs are lost due to Uniion demands, thank your Obama. I've seen film of just how "hard" these federal union people work--it's ridiculous. And no dout Obama wants this man in office to do anything he can to keep Boeing from opening the plant planned in S.C.--a right to work state.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:43 AM on 01/06/2012
Right-wing attack dog alert! [B]ARF!
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
06:08 PM on 01/06/2012
"I've talked to a lot of people about whether they like the freedom to be cheated on credit cards, to be cheated on mortgages, to be cheated on overdraft fees, and I found that was not really a freedom they valued. They don't really value that any more than Americans 100 years ago valued the right to buy rancid beef."

Guess you LIKE all of the above.

Oh, and the manufactured Boeing/SC 'controversy' blew over already. Try to keep up!

Oh, and "right to work state" = "crappy pay state."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
08:25 AM on 01/07/2012
Silly judge, those aren't freedoms!!

The Boeing controversy is still with us, the unions may have backed down some because they received some lucre from their extortion, but the NLRB case is still active. Really you should know the difference.

right to work state = freedom from union thuggery
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
11:51 AM on 01/07/2012
That's Right to Scab State!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hammer0311
Govt is the problem
02:04 PM on 01/05/2012
We are from the govt and here to help you. And how many jobs will this agency fill. One more monolithic monster we have support
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
06:09 PM on 01/06/2012
"I've talked to a lot of people about whether they like the freedom to be cheated on credit cards, to be cheated on mortgages, to be cheated on overdraft fees, and I found that was not really a freedom they valued. They don't really value that any more than Americans 100 years ago valued the right to buy rancid beef."

So, if gov't is the problem you must LIKE all of the above. Please give out your address so that you can be deluged by offers from crooked lenders, all of which you will take up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hammer0311
Govt is the problem
09:15 PM on 01/06/2012
Whoa, personal responsability. I am not happy about all of the fee's an penalties being paid. But I entered into them of my own free will. I have caught the mistakes on my bills to many times to think they are accidents. I live in a modest home an did not an donot expect a MONEY TREE ON THE CURB AKA a mail box. Nor do want to fill those of folks that wont work or be productive
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
01:54 PM on 01/05/2012
2 Republican'ts do Not a Session of the Senate make.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
08:31 AM on 01/07/2012
Au contraire!

You may not agree, but your opinion is not something any reasonable (and most likely even most unreasonable liberal courts) is going to say. It is much more likely that absent negligence or an express constitutional provision to the contrary, the court will defer to the Senate in making and following their own rules.

I so want the House to bring impeachment charges!!! Then the record would the country would be 2 for 2 democratic presidents who were impeached!!

ABO 2012!!
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
11:53 AM on 01/07/2012
The word you're looking for is Quorum.
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
11:54 AM on 01/07/2012
And, by the way, the President is using a G Dubya Bush Legal Opinion to cover this. .
SDindependent
SDindependent1 on twitter, old warrior and grandpa
01:45 PM on 01/05/2012
I think the republicans are most angry about the fact that Obama outsmarts them politically.

He has footing here, the executive branch is charged with executing the law that means putting the comsumer protection agency in motion. The republican senate is going to have to determine if it is constitutionally plausable to defend a senate rule, in an election year against middle class consumers. The president has layed down the gauntlet, lets see if they have what it takes to run it.
photo
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:46 AM on 01/06/2012
Fanned for telling it exactly like it is.

Obama’s saying: I’m tired of you running pogroms against the middle class, then complaining when we remind you what built America. You don’t like it?

Make my day.
01:31 PM on 01/05/2012
Recess appointments should not be legal, period.
Gmasters
Never underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity!
01:56 PM on 01/05/2012
You missed the fact that the Founding Fathers specifically wrote it into the Constitution?
02:45 PM on 01/05/2012
No. I just think it is inconsistent with the rest of the design of the government.

Maybe there's good reasons for it I just don't understand. *shrug*

Just a thought.
01:27 PM on 01/05/2012
OH...it was only a day or two ago that I made mention of the fact that Obama was going to make "executive decisions" and over ride or ignore congress...and I was told that would not happen and that Obam is and will not be a socialist president....well...proof is right here in front of your eyes, he wormed his way around going thru congress and he's going to do it again. Say what you want...you have someone in there willing to break laws to do what "he" wants to do and that should scare the CRAP out of all of us.......Go ahead vote for him again, then the Country will truly be flushed down the toilet. Gone will be the days when he'll have to listen to congress as this will be his "pass" that the American people will stand behind him when he makes his own "executive decisions" and it will him know that it's ok to make ALL the decisions. ..ERGO a SOCIALIST PRESIDENT. WELCOME OBAMA CHAVEZ
photo
RUKidding0
Freedom is Fundamental
01:30 PM on 01/05/2012
F & F for bringing truth to leftist ideologues
04:51 PM on 01/05/2012
The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the president the power to make appointments when Congress is not in session. After George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, the Democrats started these "not really in recess" sessions.

Appointing someone to head a government agency should be a simple task for a functioning government, right? Republicans in this Congress have made it a priority to block all nominations made by this president. Unlike recess appointments, this type of obstruction was not mentioned in the Constitution, probably because the framers didn't expect our elected officials to try to bring the nation to a full stop.

The U.S.A is set up to have three equal branches of government. The current Congressional majority has declared themselves the entire tree; their devoted followers are the fertilizer.

Your belief that President Obama is riding roughshod over America every time he *does* something--and that every action he takes is another attempt to destroy our country--is completely irrational. You might want to see someone about that.
07:32 PM on 01/05/2012
You might want to see someone over the fact that even after the "change" that never happened, the 8% max of unemployment we were promised, and have yet to see, the down the throat Obama Care that is costing us millions and hasn't changed my insurance premiums from going up, and the wasted money of shovel ready jobs which did nothing for the economy and loads for the top business's he gave the money to...whom by the way took off with the money and went BANKRUPT and you STILL support and blow smoke over a President sneaking in someone he wants while Congress is NOT in session? It Wasn't that long ago the President (then Senator) said he would NEVER do that, ohhh...but how soon we forget all the lies he's told us and jump on the band wagon of supporting him no matter what.....Yeah...pretty sure YOU need to see someone
photo
RUKidding0
Freedom is Fundamental
01:23 PM on 01/05/2012
While I find it difficult to get exorcized over Obama's end run around the Constitution, there is one real issue here.

Consider for a moment a president who seeks to appoint radicals, e.g. people who make no bones about the fact that they fully intend to diminish and disable, if not destroy, the agency for which they are being appointed - on ideological grounds.

Congress refuses to confirm, but an activist president does the Obama end run and appoints ALL of his controversial appointees by this method.

If this president were a Tea Party member seeking to reduce the size and scope of government, the left would be howling with indignation, while the right would refuse to impeach.

Consider the consequences before you approve of Obama's move. It could bite you ....
04:55 PM on 01/05/2012
He didn't go around the Constitution; he followed it.

The man he appointed is not a radical; the Republicans have no problems with him. They freely admit to not approving him because they don't want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

If it were something like appointing a radical to represent the United States to the U.N., that would be different. When Bush did that, the Congress was able to get him removed from the post. But that's a functional government action...not something currently practiced.
photo
Schalaine
We are women. We vote.
08:02 PM on 01/05/2012
If you guys left the land of "what if" and occupied the real world, we would all be better off. Instead of looking at the actual actions this President does, you make up stuff and just run with it. Not only is it not healthy, it is not fair.
photo
RUKidding0
Freedom is Fundamental
09:53 AM on 01/06/2012
Some people see what is ....
01:05 PM on 01/05/2012
Look, if Obama can't seem to work with Congress...on anything, then it's pretty clear to me that we need to replace Obama with someone who truly can work on issues in a bi-partisan manner and move this country and our economy forward.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RichPort
Don't blame me, I'm a stoned head...
01:07 PM on 01/05/2012
Really? I say it's pretty clear we need to replace Congress. The county elected the Dems with a pretty strong mandate in 2008 and the GOP then decided to say "screwthe people" and obstruct everything. Even the Dems worked with Reagan and W...
01:32 PM on 01/05/2012
lol. Wow that's pretty one-sided thinking.

The Dems were so bad the people voted them out wholesale, and now Obama isn't getting the same cooperation he got when he had both houses, which is a result of his poor decision making in his first two years. And his solution now is to just work around Congress.

The government is set up literally to prevent just that from happening.
01:35 PM on 01/05/2012
Really...you would think with all the worldy knowledge you have that you would have figured out that OBAMA had democratic control over the house and the senate...From the time he took office till Jan of 2011 at which time the house became Republican controlled.. The senate is still Democratic controlled...so I think perhaps that you might be a bit confused. If he didn't get anything passed, (besides his biggest downfall Obama Care) it's because he's a horrible President and wanted to do things which would hurt our economy......I see he's corrected that now by making "executive decisions" and bypassing the congress....Obama...One Big A** Mistake America
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
06:13 PM on 01/06/2012
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Congress can't seem to work with Obama...on anything. Using your logic and recognizing that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are considered equal within our current form of government, wouldn't that suggest that we need to replace Congress with folks who truly can work on issues in a bi-partisa­n manner and move this country and our economy forward?
06:11 PM on 01/07/2012
That is indeed how the process is supposed to work. Checks and balances. We have elections every 2-years for the House and 4-years for the White House and 6-years for the Senate. We have the choice in 2012 to make major moves one way or the other. Important in bi-partisan politics, however, is the ability to show a willingness to cooperate. Unfortunately for this country, Obama had decided from Day 1 that it was his way or the highway ("We won") as evidenced by his pushing through the Stimulus debacle and the equally horrific Obamacare. He has no more political capital left with which to get anything done with the Republicans and it is he, Pelosi and Reid who are to blame.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NanaPuddin
Proof is in the Puddin
12:54 PM on 01/05/2012
I posted this on Sanitarium page, so here it is again to quell ALL objections.

Under senate rules and proceeding­s: http://www­.senate.go­v/referenc­e/referenc­e_index_su­bjects/Rul­es_and_Pro­cedure_vrd­.htm

Quorum

Article I, section 5 of the Constituti­on requires that a quorum (51 Senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 Senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise.

So, the idea of recess appointmen­ts works because 'the Senate presumes Quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggest otherwise'­. Has been, always will be. So, unless there was a roll call or quorum call in the record books on the day of appointmen­ts, the Senate is assumed present and able to conduct business.

Daily Digest:
http://tho­mas.loc.go­v/cgi-bin/­query/D?r1­12:5:./tem­p/~r112yuJrP­n::

Therefore, the appointmen­ts are law abiding, and the appointmen­ts are 'confirmed by the Senate'.

So here's $.05 for your ranting trollies. Go play Candyland(TM) with your friends during recess.

Obama = Winning.
01:10 PM on 01/05/2012
Obama = Whining

He was whining about executive orders and recess appointments when he was in the Senate and when he was a candidate in 2008. He said he would be a President that would work with Congress not use executive priviledge to go around them.

Fast Forward: now Obama constantly whines about Congress and not getting to do things the way he wants because they stand in his way. So what does he do? He uses executive orders, signing statements, and recess appointments to go-around the House and Senate; and use the same tactics as Bush to do whatever he wants. The abuse of our Constitution has got to stop.
photo
RUKidding0
Freedom is Fundamental
01:25 PM on 01/05/2012
F & F
04:58 PM on 01/05/2012
Perhaps he was complaining, as were so many others, because Bush had 171 recess appointments. They were so blatant, and some so *bad*, that the "we're in session even when we aren't" policy began.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact MyBKTeam
contact MyBkTeam
12:50 PM on 01/05/2012
Do you really think Obama would go forward with this if he had no legal standing. Please. The Pres plays chess, the GOP plays obstruction checkers.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RichPort
Don't blame me, I'm a stoned head...
01:09 PM on 01/05/2012
The GOP throw the checkers at each other...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tkia3346
01:26 PM on 01/05/2012
Ha, Ha, Ha
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
06:15 PM on 01/06/2012
Or eat them when they think no one is looking.
photo
Schalaine
We are women. We vote.
01:10 PM on 01/05/2012
Just another move by our Prez to show Republicans for what they are...obstructionists that have actively worked against the best interests of this country. There is no way Republicans will win this fight. But, let's all enjoy their hysterical rhetoric. All the President will have to do is calmly ask the American public, "Why do Republicans choose to protect Wall Street over Main Street?"
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
12:45 PM on 01/05/2012
The judicial branch is somewhat upset by the number of vacancies within that branch in spite of the President's sending qualified nominees to the Senate for confirmation. While I have no doubt the court will act objectively the Republican certainly cant count on any favoritism in this entire issue.