# Recess appointment of Consumer Agency head **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510 "2012-01-05T14:54:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/81 "2012-01-05T22:39:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, with any luck, the Judiciary will side with the Executive on this one, because the Legislature is being a dick. Only if you think that judicial decisions should not be based on law, but on who’s being a dick. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/82 "2012-01-05T22:40:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, with any luck, the Judiciary will side with the Executive on this one, because the Legislature is being a dick. I’m not sure that they even have to do that. Can’t they simply refuse to rule on it? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/83 "2012-01-05T22:48:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …But the point is that he didn’t negotiate… Didn’t negotiate on what? The contents of a bill that’s already been passed? That’s not the way it works. They already lost that battle legislatively. They lost the vote. That’s the way the system works. At this point in the process, any negotiations are about are about the choice of nominee. NOTHING ELSE. You don’t get to change the freaking rules because you lost the damned vote. In what world does that make any sense? And you certainly don’t get to ask to negotiate on things that are no longer negotiable and then run around accusing your opponent of being unwilling to negotiate! :smack: How freaking hard is that to understand! Damn! ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/84 "2012-01-05T22:51:46Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > What you and the Senate Republicans have proposed is a giant, totally wrong, and evil can of worms, that essentially sets the precedent that a sitting president can not merely twist the words of legislation, but utterly and literally rewrite them to whatever he wants. No. No. All wrong. Where are you getting this? Did anyone suggest that the President can re-write legislation? By compromise people mean working with both parties in Congress to get agreed-upon legislation passed. This happens all the time and has nothing to do with a re-write of a law. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/85 "2012-01-05T22:55:32Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Where are you getting this? Did anyone suggest that the President can re-write legislation? By compromise people mean working with both parties in Congress to get agreed-upon legislation passed. This happens all the time and has nothing to do with a re-write of a law. Who the hell is your role model-Monty Python’s Black Knight?? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/86 "2012-01-05T22:57:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Only if you think that judicial decisions should not be based on law, but on who’s being a dick. Well, there are already competing philosophies of legal interpretation like Strict Constructionism, Textualism, Original Intent and Living Constitution. I’m prepared to tolerate one of Dick-Slapping. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/87 "2012-01-05T22:58:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Who the hell is your role model-Monty Python’s Black Knight?? What are you talking about? If you wish to answer the question then feel free. Did anyone suggest that the President can rewrite a law? ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/88 "2012-01-05T23:09:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Replace the single Director with a board to oversee the Bureau. This would prevent a single person from dominating the Bureau What’s wrong with a singer person dominating the Bureau? That’s how Bureaus typically operate. > [@](#): > > and provide a critical check on the Bureau’s authority. How? > [@](#): > > Subject the Bureau to the Congressional appropriations process. This would provide oversight and accountability to the American people on how public money is spent. I’ll have to admit, I haven’t studied the law creating the agency, but is the agency not funded by congress? I thought Congress funded all federal agencies (or can chose to withhold money). So if Congress isn’t funding the agency, who is? And if it is Congress then I see nothing wrong with them demanding oversight. > [@](#): > > Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential financial regulators, who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that excessive regulations do not needlessly cause bank failures. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can someone translate this to English please? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/89 "2012-01-05T23:10:41Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > What are you talking about? If you wish to answer the question then feel free. Did anyone suggest that the President can rewrite a law? Well, the people responsible for confirming the appointment are demanding that the actual terms of the agency, as passed by the legislature, be changed in order to allow the confirmation. **magellan01** is suggesting that the reason that the confirmation is not happening is because Obama is being unreasonable and not “negotiating” the terms of the change to the _already passed legislation_ in order for the confirmation to occur. So yes, by that, it sure seems like the people holding up the confirmation until the agency itself is changed substantially from the original _already passed legislation_ are under the impression that is a reasonable position to take, and somehow blaming Obama for not renegotiating the terms of _already passed legislation_. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/90 "2012-01-05T23:23:03Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > … > > > [@](#): > > > > Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential financial regulators, who oversee the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This would help ensure that excessive regulations do not needlessly cause bank failures. > > What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can someone translate this to English please? It’s just another way to gum up the approval process, while making it sound like it’s a matter of fairness. “Hey, if the regulators are going to check the financial institutions for safety and soundness, then it’s only fair if the regulators themselves are also checked for safety and soundness. Turnabout is fair play, after all!”:dubious: And they throw in the bit about making sure thjat the regulators aren’t causing bank failures so as to imply that regulations cause bank failures. They’re setting up a false equivalence: Regulators are just as likely as financial institutions to be unsafe and unsound, and regulations are just as likely as financial institutions to cause bank failures. See how it works? It’s all bull of course. Its typical Republican speak, and your’e right, it makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it. The problem is the people who don’t bother to think about it. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/91 "2012-01-05T23:52:25Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Well, the people responsible for confirming the appointment are demanding that the actual terms of the agency, as passed by the legislature, be changed in order to allow the confirmation. **magellan01** is suggesting that the reason that the confirmation is not happening is because Obama is being unreasonable and not “negotiating” the terms of the change to the _already passed legislation_ in order for the confirmation to occur. So yes, by that, it sure seems like the people holding up the confirmation until the agency itself is changed substantially from the original _already passed legislation_ are under the impression that is a reasonable position to take, and somehow blaming Obama for not renegotiating the terms of _already passed legislation_. **Zeriel** seems to be suggesting that that **magellan01** thinks the President can just re-write the law…as in, Obama re-writes the law the way he wants and it doesn’t have to be passed by Congress again. Nobody suggested that so I wasn’t sure what the hell **Zeriel** was so worked up about. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/92 "2012-01-05T23:58:23Z")
Well the obvious answer is that no, he can’t unilaterally negotiate for changes in the existing law, but that doesn’t prevent **magellan01** from being pissed and laying the blame on Obama instead of on the people who originally passed the law they’re now trying to hard to make sure isn’t enforced. Despite the fact that it’s already been passed. ETA: Actually, a better answer is that **magellan01** doesn’t know if he can negotiate for the changes the Republicans are demanding, but he wants him to anyway, thinking it’s just a matter of the “dems in congres agreeing” to the negotiated terms :rolleyes: > [@magellan01](#): > > To be honest, I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know how much he can negotiate any changes, never mind “major” ones. But it’s my guess that if the deems in congress agreed, there really wouldn’t be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/93 "2012-01-06T00:28:56Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > It’s just another way to gum up the approval process, while making it sound like it’s a matter of fairness. “Hey, if the regulators are going to check the financial institutions for safety and soundness, then it’s only fair if the regulators themselves are also checked for safety and soundness. Turnabout is fair play, after all!”:dubious: And they throw in the bit about making sure thjat the regulators aren’t causing bank failures so as to imply that regulations cause bank failures. > > They’re setting up a false equivalence: Regulators are just as likely as financial institutions to be unsafe and unsound, and regulations are just as likely as financial institutions to cause bank failures. See how it works? It’s all bull of course. > > Its typical Republican speak, and your’e right, it makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it. The problem is the people who don’t bother to think about it. Yeah, it seems to me to be an attitude of regulations being the problem, when it was lack of regulations that helped lead to the meltdown in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/94 "2012-01-06T00:50:39Z")
Well, the market would have fixed _itself!_ but Obama wouldn’t give it a _chance!_ ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/95 "2012-01-06T01:01:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Who the hell is your role model-Monty Python’s Black Knight?? No personal comments in Great Debates, please. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/96 "2012-01-06T01:03:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No personal comments in Great Debates, please. O.K. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/97 "2012-01-06T01:26:50Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Where are you getting this? Did anyone suggest that the President can re-write legislation? By compromise people mean working with both parties in Congress to get agreed-upon legislation passed. This happens all the time and has nothing to do with a re-write of a law. The. Legislation. Has. Already. Been. Passed. No do-overs. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/98 "2012-01-06T01:37:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It will wind up in courts (maybe SCOTUS) because Dodd-Frank says that the director has no powers unless (specifically) confirmed by the Congress. So that recess appointed director, according to the law, cannot do anything. Here is the exact text I found. Point us to more if you think it changes anything, but it seems that the Constitution clearly states that the President is allowed to make recess appointments and Congress has until the end of the next session to approve it. From what I can tell, the interpretation by courts is also quite settled. Have a recess appointee’s actions ever been reversed because the appointment was later rejected? Why would this case be any different than previous recess appointments? > [@](#): > > SEC. 1011. \<\\> ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUREAU OF > CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. > > ``` > (a) Bureau Established.--There is established in the Federal Reserve > > ``` > > System, an independent bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of Consumer > Financial Protection’', which shall regulate the offering and provision > of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer > financial laws. The Bureau shall be considered an Executive agency, as > defined in section 105 of title 5, United States > Code. \<\\> Except as otherwise provided expressly > by law, all Federal laws dealing with public or Federal contracts, > property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the > provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise > of the powers of the Bureau. > > ``` > (b) Director and Deputy Director.-- > (1) In general.--There is established the position of the > Director, who shall serve as the head of the Bureau. > (2) Appointment.-- <<NOTE: President.>> Subject to paragraph > (3), the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and > with the advice and consent of the Senate. > (3) Qualification.-- <<NOTE: President.>> The President > shall nominate the Director from among individuals who are > citizens of the United States. > (4) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the > rate prescribed for level II of the Executive Schedule under > section 5313 of title 5, United States Code. > (5) Deputy director.--There is established the position of > Deputy Director, who shall-- > (A) be appointed by the Director; and > (B) serve as acting Director in the absence or > unavailability of the Director. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/99 "2012-01-06T01:42:13Z")
> [@theR](#): > > Here is the exact text I found. Wrong section. Look in section 1066 [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/100 "2012-01-06T02:32:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Wrong section. Look in section 1066 > [@](#): > > ``` > (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform the > > ``` > > functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of the > Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011. How does that change anything? It just reinforces the text I posted. If the recess appointment meets the requirements of 1011 then 1066 does nothing to change that. It simply allows an interim Director until the requirements of 1011 are met, and it seems that the Constitution and precedents are on the side of the recess appointment. Someone else please tell me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t see much chance that anyone would get this to court and even less chance a court would rule that the recent appointee’s actions be reversed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510.md?page=6)