SENATOR MIKE JOHANNS ASKS OBAMA APPOINTEE ABOUT “GENUINE ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER”
February 1, 2012
Mike Johanns
U.S. Senator for Nebraska
404 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Senator Johanns,
I received your news update and watched your YouTube video regarding your strong objections to Mr. Obama’s so-called recess appointment of CFPB Director Richard Cordray.
I support your position, and would like to further suggest that if an appointment is not made constitutionally, than no appointment has actually been made.
If Mr. Cordray’s appointment is unlawful, I myself may just as well have appointed him – this would have as much validity as an action taken by a President which is not constitutionally authorized.
The Constitution says that “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that *may happen during* the Recess of the Senate.”
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this indicates to me that the President and Congress are jointly responsible for the appointment of public officers. By himself, the President may only make emergency appointments if a vacancy takes place during the time of a recess, but not if the vacancy already existed while Congress was in session.
Why should Congress or any American tolerate the pretended position of someone who has no authority?
Should Richard Cordray be paid for his position? Wouldn’t he be engaging in fraud? Wouldn’t the person who signs his check be an accessory to such fraud, or at least held to be negligent?
Who should, or would, give Mr. Cordray access to places, documents, or records that only the CFPB Director would have access to?
Again (as you yourself indicated while speaking before Congress), any official action that Richard Cordray takes as CFPB Director; if found to be unlawful, such action is invalid and without effect not simply after this determination has been made, but, in realty, such action would not at any time have been valid.
The LATimes.com website reported that this type of appointment has happened in the past (under President Theodore Roosevelt). But I would like to caution those who would look for a precedent as one looks for an excuse to do whatever they want, that a criminal act that has evaded punishment is not a good precedent to follow.
If a criminal gets away with something, he should not think to himself that he will get away with it again and again.
Regards,
[Redacted]
Author’s Note:
On 2012-01-31 Mike_Johanns@Johanns.senate.gov wrote:
———————————————————————-
Senator Johanns e-Update
January 31, 2012
Today I had the opportunity to question one of President Obama’s appointees who was unconstitutionally installed on January 4th. President Obama bypassed the Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head a new financial oversight bureau, so I pointed out that any actions his bureau takes may be ruled invalid because of legal challenges his appointment will face. The President took this historic action, I believe, to avoid working with Congress to address our serious concerns with the new bureau’s unlimited powers and lack of accountability. I believe the courts will recognize the blatant disregard for the Constitution Cordray’s appointment represents and reaffirm the Senate’s Constitutional role in confirming nominees.
—————————-
Editor’s Note: If the constitutionality of Cordray’s appointment will be challenged in court, why, then, cannot the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama be challenged and addressed as well? Are the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, the appointment of Supreme Court justices and federal judges as well as Executive branch employees valid if Obama does not hold office legally and constitutionally?
“If a criminal gets away with something, he should not think to himself that he will get away with it again and again.”
Fraud is a crime. Note that one of the techniques for convicting a fraudster is to look for repeatability of his criminal activity, as this shows clear intent to commit the crimes. The evidence that obama is a criminal fraud is overwhelming, as is the evidence that no one in government will do anything about his crimes against the people. The federal government is not self regulating as it was intended by the Founders, and so the states must do the heavy lifting as far as removing obama and prosecuting him for his illegal actions.
So, where are the state when we need them? Why have they not done their duties to protect their own citizens against crimes committed by the federal government?