Showdown over top post at key watchdog agency
Dems say that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) allows the outgoing director to name a temporary sucessor who will be the acting director until a new director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
President Trump says that he can appoint an acting director, who will immediately be active, even before Senate Confirmation. He says the authority to do this comes from the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
I have always been under the impression that if two acts are passed that appear to conflict with each other but the newer one does not specifically state it supersedes the older law , then the newer one is assumed to supersede the older one, unless the older one has greater specificity in some circumstances, in which case the newer law may apply in more general circumstances, with the older law still having application in more narrow circumstances. in the case, the Consumer Protection Act is more recent and more specific (pertaining to a single agency) than the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Am I incorrect?
This seems a simple matter, and it would appear that Trump is in the wrong.
What am I missing? (Looking for legalistic explanations, not political opinion.)
Dems say that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) allows the outgoing director to name a temporary sucessor who will be the acting director until a new director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
President Trump says that he can appoint an acting director, who will immediately be active, even before Senate Confirmation. He says the authority to do this comes from the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
I have always been under the impression that if two acts are passed that appear to conflict with each other but the newer one does not specifically state it supersedes the older law , then the newer one is assumed to supersede the older one, unless the older one has greater specificity in some circumstances, in which case the newer law may apply in more general circumstances, with the older law still having application in more narrow circumstances. in the case, the Consumer Protection Act is more recent and more specific (pertaining to a single agency) than the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Am I incorrect?
This seems a simple matter, and it would appear that Trump is in the wrong.
What am I missing? (Looking for legalistic explanations, not political opinion.)
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2BtM89m
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire