Senate Nano-Sessions

[fishbob]

In 2011, after the Republicans recapture the Senate, President Barak Obama will curse Harry Reid in his prayers each night, as the Republicans, having refused to hold hearings on his nominee to replace retiring Secretary of State Joe Biden, thwart his attempts to make a recess appointment by convening three or four times a week for twenty seconds at a time.

You really don't get it, do you? This will hurt all future presidents whose parties don't control the Senate.

Why should it hurt?
Would never happen if we had responsible politicians dealing in good faith - but as long as we don't - let them goose away at each other until they curl up cringing and wailing and needing new drawers.

Thats what checks and balances are for.

 

[fishbob]

double post

 

[Darat]

This amounts to an abuse of that power.

Is there any actual abuse happening? (By abuse I mean illegal use of a power.)

I wasn't there in 1787, but I'm pretty sure the authors of the Constitution didn't have this kind of behavior in mind when they wrote the article on recess appointments. Can't say I know what they would have done had it occurred to them their descendants would behave like this.

I knew nothing about this issue until this thread so my knowledge is very sparse but it would seem to me that the parliamentarians that came up with such procedures knew exactly what they were putting in place. Continuous sittings, house in session and similar tactics would have been well known and understood by the British authors of the constitution since the two houses in Britain had been using them for centuries. I suspect that they knew very well how the powers they proposed for the post of president and the senate would interrelate.

One of the frankly astonishing legacies of the founding of the USA was a governmental system that has very effective checks and balances for all the various powers each arm of the government has.

I suggest you consider your compliant in the light of how effective overall those checks and balances have been over the centuries and consider if tampering with them for your short-term political reasons is a strong enough reason to want to alter your constitution.

 

[BPSCG]

Is there any actual abuse happening? (By abuse I mean illegal use of a power.)

And that's not what I mean. I mean use of power in a way that was not intended by the Constitution's authors. More on that below.

I knew nothing about this issue until this thread so my knowledge is very sparse...

The issue didn't even exist until this thread.

but it would seem to me that the parliamentarians that came up with such procedures knew exactly what they were putting in place. Continuous sittings, house in session and similar tactics would have been well known and understood by the British authors of the constitution since the two houses in Britain had been using them for centuries. I suspect that they knew very well how the powers they proposed for the post of president and the senate would interrelate.

That gets to the point: I think this is something the Founders didn't anticipate.

While they certainly expected vigorous debate and disagreement on issues, I don't think they expected that the legislative branch of the government would try to hamstring the executive branch by outright refusing to do the work they were charged with. The Constitution says the president shall appoint executive officers, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Refusing even to consider a nominee is abdicating that responsibility. This newest tactic is the latest wrinkle in the Dems' policy of government by pouting.

The recess appointments provision was put in the Constitution in 1787, when travel to the nation's capital could take months, and Congress would be out of session for a large part of every year. The purpose of the recess appointments provision was to allow the president to make temporary appointments without having to wait five months for Congress to reconvene; otherwise the business of the government could grind to a halt simply because Congress wasn't expected back for months. It was a provision of the Constitution that allowed the president to act when Congress wasn't available to do its work.

Times have changed; congressmen routinely fly home to their districts on the opposite side of the continent every Thursday night, and return on Monday mornings. Time and distance are no longer factors that prevent congress from doing its work. The reason there are these 165 vacancies now is not because congress is far away and unable to conduct its business; it's because a minority of the Senate has decided it can thwart the desires of the majority by sitting back and refusing to do its constitutional duty.

Question: Doesn't the prime minister have the power to call parliament into session? Just asking as a separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances issue.

I suggest you consider your compliant in the light of how effective overall those checks and balances have been over the centuries and consider if tampering with them for your short-term political reasons is a strong enough reason to want to alter your constitution.

Where have I suggested altering the Constitution? Where have I suggested altering the system of checks and balances? My beef is that a Democratic minority is thwarting the will of the majority, not by doing the work charged to it by the constitution, but by refusing to do it. The Dems have created a precedent; I hope they won't be too upset when it comes back to bite them in a few years.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

That gets to the point: I think this is something the Founders didn't anticipate.

While they certainly expected vigorous debate and disagreement on issues, I don't think they expected that the legislative branch of the government would try to hamstring the executive branch by outright refusing to do the work they were charged with. The Constitution says the president shall appoint executive officers, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Refusing even to consider a nominee is abdicating that responsibility. This newest tactic is the latest wrinkle in the Dems' policy of government by pouting.

...snip...

So this is an example of the check and balances you want changing e.g. that the senate has the power to block the presidents appointments...

...snip...

The recess appointments provision was put in the Constitution in 1787, when travel to the nation's capital could take months, and Congress would be out of session for a large part of every year. The purpose of the recess appointments provision was to allow the president to make temporary appointments without having to wait five months for Congress to reconvene; otherwise the business of the government could grind to a halt simply because Congress wasn't expected back for months. It was a provision of the Constitution that allowed the president to act when Congress wasn't available to do its work.

Times have changed; congressmen routinely fly home to their districts on the opposite side of the continent every Thursday night, and return on Monday mornings. Time and distance are no longer factors that prevent congress from doing its work. The reason there are these 165 vacancies now is not because congress is far away and unable to conduct its business; it's because a minority of the Senate has decided it can thwart the desires of the majority by sitting back and refusing to do its constitutional duty.

...snip...

If this is the case I would say that a modern day president making recess appointments is the one that is "circumventing the constitution" to use your wording because the original reason for the power doesn't exist any longer.

Therefore surely you should be complaining of the president's "abuse of power" in using a power that no longer has a place in the modern government?

...snip...

Question: Doesn't the prime minister have the power to call parliament into session? Just asking as a separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances issue.

...snip...

Yes but remember the PM in the UK is in fact just an MP, most of the powers of the PMs office are customary and traditional and are carried out under the guise of the authority of the Monarch rather than constitutional in the sense the USA tends to use the word. This is why for instance there is no necessity in the UK for the PM to even consult with the HoC on matters such as taking the country to war never mind having to gain the approval of the HoC.

Our parliamentary systems share some common elements but are quite different.

...snip...

Where have I suggested altering the Constitution? Where have I suggested altering the system of checks and balances? My beef is that a Democratic minority is thwarting the will of the majority, not by doing the work charged to it by the constitution, but by refusing to do it. The Dems have created a precedent; I hope they won't be too upset when it comes back to bite them in a few years.

But your constitution was very purposefully set up to thwart the will of the majority or rather to avoid the tyranny of the majority. You haven't demonstrated in this thread that the senate are acting in any way that is contrary to your well designed parliamentary system. Indeed the only strong argument you've put forward is that the office of the president has been abusing its power in using an outdated power to appoint people to executive positions during a recess of the senate!

Also it would seem that the Democrats have not created a precedent since it looks from the links that other people have brought to the thread that both Democrats and Republicans have for many years been using parliamentary procedures to, as you put it "thwart the will of the majority".

 

[Praktik]

Also it would seem that the Democrats have not created a precedent since it looks from the links that other people have brought to the thread that both Democrats and Republicans have for many years been using parliamentary procedures to, as you put it "thwart the will of the majority".

And for many years we hear each side cloak their partisan objectives in some sort of noble appeal to principle - when really they're looking at short-term political gains when they engage in this.

I would say there's more than enough blame to go around. The president should select candidates that don't attract this type of response, and the Congress (dem or republican) should work their best to find a compromise and get SOMEONE into vacant positions.

But that would require a spirit of cooperation that has been long missing in American politics.

 

[BPSCG]

If this is the case I would say that a modern day president making recess appointments is the one that is "circumventing the constitution" to use your wording because the original reason for the power doesn't exist any longer.

Presidents have always made recess appointments, even long after the days of horse-and-buggy transportation had become a thing of the past. Bush's exercise of it is not new, or even a new method of using it.

Therefore surely you should be complaining of the president's "abuse of power" in using a power that no longer has a place in the modern government?

Again, Bush's use of it is in no way new; what is a recent development is the Senate tactic that made it necessary. if the Senate were doing its job - i.e., holding committee hearings, voting nominees out of hearings with a recommendation to the full Senate to confirm or deny a nominee, and then a full vote by the Senate, Bush would have little or no need or justification for making the recess appointments.

But instead, a minority of senators decide that they wouldn't like the results if they did that, they decide to just fold their arms and stall, using an artifact that the Founders probably never envisioned - wilfull refusal to do the work delegated to them by the Constitution.

This is why for instance there is no necessity in the UK for the PM to even consult with the HoC on matters such as taking the country to war never mind having to gain the approval of the HoC.

[derail]
I read the first two or three volumes of Churchill's WW II memoirs and was struck that it was essentially he who decided to go to war with Germany. He called together his cabinet, told them the situation, told them it was time to go to war, and the next thing you knew, it was in all the papers. No vote of Parliament.
[/derail]

Our parliamentary systems share some common elements but are quite different.

Obviously...

But your constitution was very purposefully set up to thwart the will of the majority or rather to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Um, not really. It was set up to allow the will of the majority while remaining respectful of the rights of the minority.

You haven't demonstrated in this thread that the senate are acting in any way that is contrary to your well designed parliamentary system. Indeed the only strong argument you've put forward is that the office of the president has been abusing its power in using an outdated power to appoint people to executive positions during a recess of the senate!

And perhaps both the concept of recess appointments and congressional recesses have outlived their (constitutional) usefulness.

I wonder what would happen if a few of Republican senators appeared at one of these nanosessions and the instant the presiding officer (the president pro tem of the Senate) opened the session, asked for floor time and started a filibuster, then demanded a vote on something. There would be a quorum call; I wonder if all hell would break loose. Might be fun to watch.

Also it would seem that the Democrats have not created a precedent since it looks from the links that other people have brought to the thread that both Democrats and Republicans have for many years been using parliamentary procedures to, as you put it "thwart the will of the majority".

Correct, and it doesn't serve the best interests of the nation. This is the newest and latest wrinkle, and it won't be the last. What happens if two leftwing Supreme court justices die during president Mike Huckabee's first term, and he tries to appoint someone Harry Reid doesn't like? Do we then shut the Supreme Court down? Or does the court, in the absence of sufficient judges, start striking cases from its docket? Or, flipping the coin, what happens if two right wing Supreme court justices die during president Hillary Clinton's first term, and she tries to appoint someone the new Republican Senate majority leader doesn't like? Do we then shut the Supreme Court down? Or does the court, in the absence of sufficient judges, start striking cases from its docket?

I think that anyone who says it can't happen needs to remove the rose-colored glasses. As Lurker said, this is getting out of hand. Government is supposed to govern, not play endless games of "cripple the other guy."

 

[Darat]

Presidents have always made recess appointments, even long after the days of horse-and-buggy transportation had become a thing of the past. Bush's exercise of it is not new, or even a new method of using it.

...snip...

I didn't comment that Bush's use of the power was new just the fact that if it was granted to overcome a problem caused by the transportation logistics of a couple of centuries ago it really should not be a power that is used today when the problem no longer exists. As I said it would seem that modern day presidents are using the power in a way it was not intended for (if your account of the reason for it being instigated is correct).

And the fact that it is still being used supports my contention that parliamentarians will use whatever procedures they can to push their agenda.

Again, Bush's use of it is in no way new; what is a recent development is the Senate tactic that made it necessary. if the Senate were doing its job - i.e., holding committee hearings, voting nominees out of hearings with a recommendation to the full Senate to confirm or deny a nominee, and then a full vote by the Senate, Bush would have little or no need or justification for making the recess appointments.

...snip...

Yet others have provided links to show the use of parliamentary procedures has been used by past senates so it is not new on either side. Again it would seem you are only objecting to one side's use of parliamentary procedures because the outcome is not in line with your political wishes otherwise you would be condemning both the presidential "abuse of power" and the senates.

But instead, a minority of senators decide that they wouldn't like the results if they did that, they decide to just fold their arms and stall, using an artifact that the Founders probably never envisioned - wilfull refusal to do the work delegated to them by the Constitution.

...snip...

I profoundly disagree - this is all part and parcel of the systems the founders knowingly and with clear intent created. Surely this is the very essence of a representational democracy in action?

...snip...

And perhaps both the concept of recess appointments and congressional recesses have outlived their (constitutional) usefulness.

...snip...

From my limited research to contribute to this thread I think that may well be the case.

...snip...

I wonder what would happen if a few of Republican senators appeared at one of these nanosessions and the instant the presiding officer (the president pro tem of the Senate) opened the session, asked for floor time and started a filibuster, then demanded a vote on something. There would be a quorum call; I wonder if all hell would break loose. Might be fun to watch.

...snip...

It's what parliaments are all about.

...snip...


Correct, and it doesn't serve the best interests of the nation. This is the newest and latest wrinkle, and it won't be the last. What happens if two leftwing Supreme court justices die during president Mike Huckabee's first term, and he tries to appoint someone Harry Reid doesn't like? Do we then shut the Supreme Court down? Or does the court, in the absence of sufficient judges, start striking cases from its docket? Or, flipping the coin, what happens if two right wing Supreme court justices die during president Hillary Clinton's first term, and she tries to appoint someone the new Republican Senate majority leader doesn't like? Do we then shut the Supreme Court down? Or does the court, in the absence of sufficient judges, start striking cases from its docket?

I think that anyone who says it can't happen needs to remove the rose-colored glasses. As Lurker said, this is getting out of hand. Government is supposed to govern, not play endless games of "cripple the other guy."

My knowledge of your constitution is not sufficient to come up with an answer to your question however I would not be surprised if there was a mechanism that can break most stalemates and if not then the issue is in the hands of the voters - i.e. they will need to vote for representatives that can make a deal.