Nevermind the spinelessness the Administration is showing in its policy of continuing the Bush torture shenanigans (so much for real change), now we see them playing this game:
Article II, Section 2 also says “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,” but Congress explicitly did not view the head of the financial consumer bureau as an inferior officer. On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both Houses stating that the “Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
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. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he’d have been accused of staging a coup.
Read the whole thing. It’s not just this President, but virtually all. Sadly, I don’t think these sorts of things get the Tea Partiers all that excited, but it is, in my view, far more serious than any spending problem. Why? Because there is some check on spending – the economy can crash, the bond vigilantes may rear their heads, and so on. But when we see the Executive Office make end runs around the Senate in appointing an unelected official to wield more power than any single elected official likely holds … well, then, we aren’t in the U.S. of A. that we learned about in our civics classes.
But hey, since I argue that pubic schooling is a disaster for various reasons, maybe we never actually learned anything about the rule of law in civics class.