Tyrant or Leader?

a_560x375.jpg

Now that Congress is (more or less) recessed, maybe President Obama can finally get something done.  In fact, he already is.  President Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is just the start of business Obama is planning to get done.  However, Senate and House Republicans have denounced Obama’s recess appointment of Cordray as an act of tyranny or worse.  They are arguing the move was unconstitutional because the Senate meets every three or four days over the holiday period and therefore is not on a recess.

The idea of the recess appointment was included in the Constitution so that Congress could not derail our government when they are out of session.  In order to work around the President’s ability to exercise his right to make these recess appointments, Congress is holding these so-called pro-forma sessions where a skeleton crew of Congress meet infrequently to maintain the appearance of being in session.  Sounds like a gimmick to me.  President Obama and his legal team agree and are challenging this by proceeding forward with recess appointments. Is he a socialist tyrant as the Republicans claim (even though many presidents – Republican and Democrat - have used recess appointments)? Or is President Obama showing some backbone and stepping up as the leader many had hoped for?

What’s the real issue at stake?  I think that the Republicans are afraid that Obama might actually use his executive powers to move America past the current economic situation.  Maybe he will revamp the military? (Oh wait – he wants to do that - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142691225718730.html?mod=whats_now) And worse…He might win reelection!