Can he be taken to court over it or is their some sort on censure possible?
Seems like R’s are sitting on their hands - maybe many would like to do this as well. The constraints of the Law are for everyone. When politicians throw off that restraint they are no longer working for the will of the people they are working for themselves. Every Republican should refuse to pass another bill or pass any money allocations until this is sorted but they won’t because you have a bunch of political wimps in power!
Mel
The republicans are nothing more than Obamas Lapdogs. They dont want to risk the chance of upsetting the gravytrain so they lay dog time after time.
Spineless yellow currs....
“ Ike,you tell all the other currs, the laws coming. You tell them we’re coming and hells coming with us”{ Tombstone quote}.
He certainly can be taken to court - by any member of the Senate. The Constitution is very clear that a recess appointment can ONLY be made when the Senate is in recess.
The pro forma session means that the Senate WAS in session. Which means that Obama COULD NOT make a recess appointment. This would be the argument against him.
Additionally, the Dodd-Frank law SPECIFICALLY states that the powers of the Director of the CFPB ARE NOT vested with him until he is "confirmed by the Senate" [actual text].
LASTLY, the claim by Obama [and Reid] that the Senate was "not technically in session" brings up a HUGE point. Reid called for [and got] "unanimous consent" for the Senate to be in "pro forma" session just before Christmas. That way, the Senate could go home early.
This was so that IF a deal on the extension of the "tax cuts" were reached, the Senators WOULD NOT have to come back to DC and wait three days in the Capitol before voting on it. And, the deal was reached.
Since the Senate was in pro forma session all the while - the Senators did their own thing for three days, then came back to DC, voted on the bill, and THEN got the hell back out of Dodge.
IF Obama AND Reid are correct about the pro forma session being a sham, THEN the bill that Obama signed IS NULL AND VOID - since the Senate WAS NOT in session AND the rules call for the bill to be signed ONLY after the final version has been available to the Senate for THREE days WHILE the Senate is IN SESSION.
OBAMA CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. He CANNOT claim that the pro forma session is a sham so he can make a recess appointment, YET claim the Senate WAS in session [by pro forma] when he signed the bill ...
Obama is attempting to pick a fight with congress - the House Republicans in particular. While the recess appointment flap is an impeachable offense there’s little chance of getting him removed before the election. Still, the process needs to start. I suggest that a good first step would be to impound the monies budgeted for this appointee’s new department. That would focus the argument on this specific violation of the law.
Given the way the federal courts have been tip-toeing around the presidential-eligibility suits I think that it's fair to assume that they will rule that you "have no standing" to bring such a lawsuit. The courts have been treating the citizenry as mere subjects. It has become more apparent since Obama took the Whitehouse.
They are equally as guilty of abdication and "ruling class syndrome", call it treason or what ever, they have done nothing but capitulate to the will of "he who must not be named"
to retain their power, they can not and will not move against each other.....
they may bluster and wail, but in the end they will acquiesce so long as they retain the power they have, not by constitutional standards, but by pure greed.
The shame not only comes from them, and the military whom waits for their scraps (Leadership) but to each of Americas legal voters for not holding their elected officials collective feet to the fire.
One hundred years ago, (I would submit) most of those in DC would have been tried and convicted of treason for the crap they are pulling now.