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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
