Unconstitionally installing bureau head is totally cool

I realize I'm a week late on this. Sue me.

So, for those of you who don't follow the minutia of politics, you may not have heard all the details about the recent appointment of one Richard Cordray as the head of the recently created consumer protection bureau. This bureau's purpose, according to the front page of their website, is "to prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace." Bypassing whether such a bureau should have been created (Fun family activity: Check the Constitution for the part where the government creates bureaus practically immune to Presidential oversight! Spoiler: It's not there), we'll go straight to the part of how the man was appointed. The President exercised his power of recess appointments in order to bypass the approval of Congress and install Mr. Cordray as the new bureau chief.

The catch? Congress wasn't technically in recess...and by technically, I mean they definitely, totally weren't.

"What's the big deal?" you might ask to those around you. "I don't know. Who cares? Let's eat chips and gossip about celebrities." would be the response you'd probably get, statistically speaking, from those in your vicinity. Fortunately, you're asking that question in my vicinity...sort of...through your computer screen and miles of cable...Anyway, I'll tell you what!

The power of recess appointments is Constitutional, in and of itself. It comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Normally, appointments work like:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...

The Founding Fathers knew, though, that sometimes Congress just wouldn't be available. So, they provided for that.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

This way, the President could appoint fellas when Congress was too busy polishing their golf clubs if he needed to. These people would have to be confirmed by the Senate when they decided to show up to work next, thereby appeasing the necessity of having the "Advice and Consent of the Senate".

So far so good. So, what makes it so that Congress is in Recess? Well, as it turns out, the Founding Fathers didn't want the Senate skipping out on the House and vice versa, just cause they didn't wanna be there no more. So, they made a specific rule about going into Recess in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

You may have heard that the Senate was not really sitting in the usual sense, but calling "pro forma" sessions, wherein they are called into order and then immediately adjourned. This may sound like a stall tactic, and it can be, but it wasn't the Senate doing it, but the House. (As was pointed out by Ed Meese, Attorney General under St. Ronald, these sessions aren't just for show. The two month extension of the payroll tax holiday was approved during a pro forma session. At any point the Senate could have confirmed this guy, if the fancy struck them.) The Senate had not yet received permission to Recess by the House. The House was blocking the Recess, specifically to block to appointment of Cordray. In doing this they were acting within the framework of checks and balances laid out in the Constitution. President can circumvent Senate to temporarily appoint people if Congress is in Recess. No Recess = No Recess Appointments. Checkmate.

Until, that is, the President just tosses the Constitution out of the window and does his own thing.

The White House sees this as a win. Obama says that when "Congress refuses to act" he has to go out there and do his thing. He gets to look like a hero, while the rest of us are seen as quibbling over Constitutional technicalities. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that Congress was acting. It was acting in its capacity as a check on the President, using the rules of the Constitution to block a move by the President they did not like. That is their job.

To put it in perspective, this would be like Congress passing a law, the President vetoing the law, and Congress saying "Tough crap. You don't like it? Too bad, it's a law anyway." and everyone else going along with it.

This may seem like a small issue, but the fact is the President blatantly ignored the Constitution to get what he wanted. You can say that Congress was being petty blocking this nomination, and I wouldn't disagree with you. They had to go into recess eventually, and it would have happened then. I ask you this: What happens next time the Office of the President (not just Obama, because remember precedents carry on from term to term) comes up against a barrier they don't like? Will they simply circumvent that one because it "would've happened anyway" or "Congress isn't acting fast enough"? The Constitution is designed, in part, to slow down decision making so that one branch of government does not become too powerful. This dangerous sort of precedent, ignoring constraints on power that are inconvenient, paves the way for an overpowered executive branch that can make decisions very quickly without being constrained by the other two branches.

You know what system of government allows for really fast decisions by a strong executive branch?

Monarchy.

Long live the King.