# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/121 "2012-01-06T18:26:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Let’s use a real-world example to see if you actually believe this. > > In 2010, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved two amendments to the state constitution designed to prevent gerrymandering. > > Since Florida had a history of minority voting rights violations at the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, Justice Department approval is required before any changes can be made to state voting laws, and since the entire state is subject to the approval requirement, only the governor can submit changes for approval. > > Rick Scott, who vehemently opposed the amendments, is refusing to submit them to the Justice Department for approval, which essentially nullifies them since they cannot take effect until approved. > > Like the CPA statute, the constitutional amendments are not set in stone. Is Scott’s tactic legitimate or not? Hmmmm . . . tough question but not because of the angle you’re think of. States should not have to submit their state voting plans to the Feds for approval. That is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. I understand the concern the Feds have given Fla’s history, but it is up to a resident of Florida to sue in federal court if the new rules are biased. So the answer is that Scott needs to tell the Feds that the rules are part of the Florida Constitution and that no were are not submitting them for approval and I will see you in court to nullify the approval requirement as unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/122 "2012-01-06T18:46:56Z")
I love studying parliamentary law so that is where my views are. I’m a Pub and I don’t view what my party is doing as obstructionism most of the time. If the rules say you need 60 votes in the Senate and that 41 Senators can block legislation through a procedural filibuster then those are the rules of the game. Likewise the Democrats using “deem and pass” to get Obamacare through is a fair use of procedure. What I object to is when the parliamentary rules are violated. For example, during the Obamacare debates, a Senator asked for a extremely long amendment to be read as a time waster. According to the rules, the amendment must be read in full no matter what. the Senator withdrew the amandment and the clerk was directed to stop reading despite the parliamentarian’s ruling and the general parliamentary law that once a item is presented, it belongs to the assembly and not the motion-maker. That was wrong and it would be wrong if a Pub did it to the Dems. All that being said, even though I approve of using every means allowed in the Rules of Order the assembly uses (and as a side note, Legislatures tend to use Mason’s and not Robert’s) once the law is passed and you lost, you move on. Maybe later you can repeal it but for the Pubs to prevent the law from being implemented this way is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/123 "2012-01-06T19:08:57Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So the answer is that Scott needs to tell the Feds that the rules are part of the Florida Constitution and that no were are not submitting them for approval and I will see you in court to nullify the approval requirement as unconstitutional. Nice dodge, but SCOTUS has upheld the preapproval provision (of the Voting Rights Act, not the Civil Rights Act - my bad) as constitutional on at least two occasions. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/124 "2012-01-06T20:01:23Z")
> [@theR](#): > > Going by the interpretation to date of what the Constitution says about recess appointments, yes. Good luck with that argument in court. You will need it. > [@](#): > > Let me be clear. My quibble here is that I don’t agree that it will go to court, and that you’re completely wrong that all his actions will be reversed. It definitely will go to court, and if the court decides that he was not confirmed by the Senate (which is about as clear as the fact that grass is green) the actions will be reversed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/125 "2012-01-06T20:36:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Good luck with that argument in court. You will need it. > > It definitely will go to court, and if the court decides that he was not confirmed by the Senate (which is about as clear as the fact that grass is green) the actions will be reversed. Which case will be heard in 2016 or so. The blocking so far was done in a way most voters wouldn’t notice. Do Republicans really want front page news for a month or so to say about how they are against consumer protection? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/126 "2012-01-06T21:03:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Let’s use a real-world example to see if you actually believe this. > > In 2010, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved two amendments to the state constitution designed to prevent gerrymandering. > > Since Florida had a history of minority voting rights violations at the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, Justice Department approval is required before any changes can be made to state voting laws, and since the entire state is subject to the approval requirement, only the governor can submit changes for approval. > > Rick Scott, who vehemently opposed the amendments, is refusing to submit them to the Justice Department for approval, which essentially nullifies them since they cannot take effect until approved. > > Like the CPA statute, the constitutional amendments are not set in stone. Is Scott’s tactic legitimate or not? Based on what you wrote his actions are perfectly legitimate. Are you suggesting otherwise? Scott found a tactic to nullify the amendments. Voters can nullify his ass in the next election. I don’t agree with his tactics but they are, as you described them, legitimate. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/127 "2012-01-06T21:51:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Which case will be heard in 2016 or so. I am sure an injunction will be asked for and granted, and the case will be expedited. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/128 "2012-01-06T22:01:36Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I am sure an injunction will be asked for and granted, and the case will be expedited. Depends on who the judge is, but I suspect it could be argued that there is little harm in him assuming his post until the case is decided, and more harm in a legally constituted agency not having a head. But, as I said, Republicans might want to consider the harm of being anti-consumer in an election year. I think the average voter is going to be a lot more outraged over not having support for their protection rather than arcane and on the face of of it ridiculous Senate rules being violated. The public hates Congress, and anything that ties this hate to the Republicans is good. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/129 "2012-01-06T22:12:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Depends on who the judge is, but I suspect it could be argued that there is little harm in him assuming his post until the case is decided, and more harm in a legally constituted agency not having a head. I’m not so sure. The Bureau is currently under Treasury but it moves the the Fed once a director is sworn in. I wonder if that is reason enough to grant an injunction. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/130 "2012-01-06T22:25:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Depends on who the judge is, but I suspect it could be argued that there is little harm in him assuming his post until the case is decided, and more harm in a legally constituted agency not having a head. > > But, as I said, Republicans might want to consider the harm of being anti-consumer in an election year. I think the average voter is going to be a lot more outraged over not having support for their protection rather than arcane and on the face of of it ridiculous Senate rules being violated. The public hates Congress, and anything that ties this hate to the Republicans is good. Surely you mean: Anti-consumer vs Anti-a czar-happy President who elected yet another unaccountable figurehead and treats the presidency as a monarchy…continuously trying to expand his power and diminish that of what is a co-equal branch of government Don’t mention it. 😉 ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/131 "2012-01-06T22:32:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Depends on who the judge is, but I suspect it could be argued that there is little harm in him assuming his post until the case is decided, and more harm in a legally constituted agency not having a head. There is absolutely no harm in him assuming his post. In fact, Frank-Dodd does not prohibit him assuming the post through the recess appointment. But it does not grant him any powers until he is confirmed by the Senate. So - the first decision he makes, the first regulation he issues, harm can be shown and the lawsuit will be filed and request for injunction will be made. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/132 "2012-01-07T01:23:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > a czar-happy President who elected yet another unaccountable figurehead Yes, that’s right. The Legislature enacting a bill that instructs the president to appoint a department head is CLEARLY the president unilaterally abusing his power. The Republican party line on this bill is so ridiculously, transparently untrue that it defies belief. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/133 "2012-01-08T07:41:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > There is absolutely no harm in him assuming his post. In fact, Frank-Dodd does not prohibit him assuming the post through the recess appointment. But it does not grant him any powers until he is confirmed by the Senate. So - the first decision he makes, the first regulation he issues, harm can be shown and the lawsuit will be filed and request for injunction will be made. Does Dodd-Frank specifically prohibit recess appointments, or does it specify appointments be made using the usual mechanisms? And I am not disputing that a lawsuit will be filed and an injunction requested. I’m just saying it might not be granted, and the request plays right to Obama’s strategy. The Republicans would be stupid to make this headline news, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/134 "2012-01-08T07:44:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Surely you mean: > > Anti-consumer > > vs > > Anti-a czar-happy President who elected yet another unaccountable figurehead and treats the presidency as a monarchy…continuously trying to expand his power and diminish that of what is a co-equal branch of government > Don’t mention it. 😉 Shit like this - obstruction - is exactly why the American public hates the guts of the Republican House. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/135 "2012-01-08T08:07:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Does Dodd-Frank specifically prohibit recess appointments, or does it specify appointments be made using the usual mechanisms? No, it doesn’t. It just says the director cannot exercise any powers until confirmed by the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/136 "2012-01-08T08:14:14Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, it doesn’t. It just says the director cannot exercise any powers until confirmed by the Senate. Here’s an argument as to why that’s not the case, with the analysis from the Congressional Research Service also believing that’s not the case: > **[Sorry Cato, A CFPB Recess Appointment Has Full Regulatory Powers](https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/sorry-cato-a-cfpb-recess-appointment-has-full-regulatory-powers/)** > > It’s rare we get to see a necromancer right-wing think-tank intellectual create a zombie idea – the kind that never dies, but lurches on and on in the right-wing media no matter how muc… And there’s been nothing in the past preventing recess appointments from exercising their full statutory powers for the duration of the appointment. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/137 "2012-01-08T08:29:42Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Here’s an argument as to why that’s not the case, with the analysis from the Congressional Research Service also believing that’s not the case: > > [Sorry Cato, A CFPB Recess Appointment Has Full Regulatory Powers | Rortybomb](http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/sorry-cato-a-cfpb-recess-appointment-has-full-regulatory-powers/) > > And there’s been nothing in the past preventing recess appointments from exercising their full statutory powers for the duration of the appointment. Was there a clause in the law like the one in Frank-Dodd? All the court needs to do is ask itself: "Has the director been “confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011”? Ask yourself that question. And if you answer yes, the follow up question would be: what’s the date of the confirmation by the Senate, and what is the roll call? ---
**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 8, 2012, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/138 "2012-01-08T08:45:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Surely you mean: > > Anti-consumer > > vs > > Anti-a czar-happy President who elected yet another unaccountable figurehead and treats the presidency as a monarchy…continuously trying to expand his power and diminish that of what is a co-equal branch of government Just out of curiosity, are you seriously suggesting the Republican actions are a noble resistance to a monarchical power-mad president? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/139 "2012-01-08T13:22:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Was there a clause in the law like the one in Frank-Dodd? > > All the court needs to do is ask itself: "Has the director been “confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011”? > > Ask yourself that question. And if you answer yes, the follow up question would be: what’s the date of the confirmation by the Senate, and what is the roll call? Following section 1011 and the constitution, the president can make a recess appointment in lieu of a senate vote, and those constitute “confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section 1011”, so yes. As to your follow up questions, the date of confirmation is really the date the requirements of section 1011 and the constitution were met, the date of the recess appointment, and there isn’t a need for a roll call under those circumstances. The bigger question is whether or not the Senate was in recess when they all left town and stopped doing business. There seem to be arguments on both sides, but common sense says they are in recess. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510/140 "2012-01-08T14:25:01Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > On the fourth hand, I believe the Republicans in the senate have said that they won’t agree to anyone to head this agency, until the agency’s role is changed. This seems like dirty pool to me, an illegitimate way to change the law, which was passed in the proper way. In this case, the senate didn’t have legitimate concerns about the appointee, but was opposed to the agency in general. The proper way to address that is to have the law changed. I don’t think “jury nullification” is the proper way to run the senate. > RS Sorry if I missed it but what’s the history of this agency? How specific was its purpose when it was created and what has the Obama admin done (if anything) to indicate its plans for it since?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recess-appointment-of-consumer-agency-head/608510.md?page=8)