On Friday, President Obama appointed Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren to be the head of the brand new U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB was created by the new Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill that became law in July of 2010. The new law is called the “Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act.”
The United States Constitution states that the President:
“shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Officers of the United States. . . . Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone.”
President Obama signed the new Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill into law on July 21, 2010. The law states that the:
“”Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
The CFPB created a new government watchdog agency that: (i) sets its own budget so it is not dependent on Congress for funding, and (ii) is independent and not controlled by Congress or the President. This new agency is a totalitarian governmental agency that will be run by unelected people who answer to no one. Does anybody who believes in freedom and liberty think this is a good idea? The audacity of hope!
Despite the U.S. Constitution and the express language in the law, President Obama appointed Warren to be the director of the CFPB without the consent of the U.S. Senate or even a hearing on whether she should hold the job. Why do few people care when the President violates federal law? What will happen to our country if our leaders do not respect and follow the rule of law?
The Wall St. Journal said Warren’s appointment avoided “Senate confirmation and, for that matter, any political supervision. The chutzpah here is something to behold. . . . We would have thought a Harvard law professor would object to the extra-legality of this arrangement, but then this is also the crew that gave us ObamaCare via budget reconciliation and put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare without a Senate debate. . . . We have here another end-run around Constitutional niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So a bureau inside an agency (the Fed) that it doesn’t report to, with a budget not subject to Congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation.”
QUOTE: “Why do few people care when the President violates federal law? What will happen to our country if our leaders do not respect and follow the rule of law?”
MY COMMENT: This reminds me of when the Obama administration “negotiated” a bankruptcy for GM in which Bond holders were put behind the Unions. It is my understanding that the law is that when you purchase a bond you are first in line (or at least ahead of stock holders and employees) to get your money back should that organization go bankrupt. Which is why bonds don’t typically have very high rates of return, but are considered one of the safer investments.
It seemed to me they flat out circumvented the law by ignoring the bond holder’s rights and giving a larger share of the money to the unions who I thought had zero legal claim on the money. Didn’t those bond holders have a contract? How could they do that and why would the bankruptcy judge sign off on it?
That’s just one other example. I expected there to be a major hew and cry over that — and a few other things this administration has done that seem to COMPLETELY ignore the LAW. But people seem to just shrug and move on.
In this blog you ask:
Why do few people care when the President violates federal law? What will happen to our country if our leaders do not respect and follow the rule of law?
I too am very concerned about this. This situation reminds me of the GM Bankruptcy deal that the Obama administration “negotiated.” It is my understanding that the LAW is that when you purchas a bond you are entering into a contract and part of that contract is that you have a specific spot in line to recover money should the company selling the bond go bankrupt.
Yet from what I read in the news, after publicly smearing the bond holders as selfish, the Obama Administration “gave” the unions more money on the dollar than the bond holders, plus they got 20% ownership of GM.
I remember thinking at the time — how is that even legal? Who is going to invest in bonds if the government can step in and give their money to someone else? Maybe I misunderstood the law/situation, but I was shocked that a bankruptcy judge signed off on it. And then stunned that there was not a major hew and cry about it. But people barely shrugged. goo.gl/NjhU
Another example being the illegal firing of inspector Walpin when he investigated a friend of Obamas. goo.gl/GCR7
It seems there have been several things this administration has done that are flat out illegal but no one seems to care. At least not anyone who has the power to enforce the law.