Obama's Recess Appointment Sparks Showdown

[ZirconBlue]

My feeling is the President needs to fill vacant positions in a timely manner, so his appointees should be given an up or down vote in the Senate in a reasonable timeframe. As such, I don't believe the Senate should be allowed to use of the filibuster to block appointments. They most certainly should not be able to use anonymous holds to block voting on appointments. And, pretending to still be in session via this farce of "proforma sessions" to block recess appointments is the most egregious abuse of all.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Funny how its wrong when Obama finally does this, but was okay when bush abused the same power.

 

[applecorped]

So, was the payroll tax holiday extension that was passed by the Senate on 23 December legal?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, was the payroll tax holiday extension that was passed by the Senate on 23 December legal?

Feel free to prove what Obama did was illegal.

 

[Beeyon]

Funny how its wrong when Obama finally does this, but was okay when bush abused the same power.

Can you provide a citation for Bush making recess appointments during Reid's pro forma sessions?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

My feeling is the President needs to fill vacant positions in a timely manner, so his appointees should be given an up or down vote in the Senate in a reasonable timeframe. As such, I don't believe the Senate should be allowed to use of the filibuster to block appointments. They most certainly should not be able to use anonymous holds to block voting on appointments. And, pretending to still be in session via this farce of "proforma sessions" to block recess appointments is the most egregious abuse of all.

You should probably talk to the Senate Majority Leader about this. He is, if I recall corrcectly, a Democrat.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Feel free to prove what Obama did was illegal.

Article II, Section 2 states: "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."

Article I, Section 5 states: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

The House did not consent to a recess. The Senate, therefore, cannot be in recess.

Furthermore, no reasonable person could assert the Senate can pass bills while in recess, which they did (and Obama signed without objection to the status of the Senate which passed it) in the same status they were in when Obama made his "recess" appointments.

Since it is indisputable that A: the House did not consent to a recess, and B: the Senate was capable of conducting business (as evidenced by the passage of a bill the president then signed into law), then it is not possible the Senate was in recess and unable to conduct business.

If the Senate was not in recess and was able to conduct business, the recess appointments clause cannot be invoked and the appointments were unconstitutional.

QED.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Article II, Section 2 states: "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."

Article I, Section 5 states: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

The House did not consent to a recess. The Senate, therefore, cannot be in recess.

for more than three days. They can be in recess for 3 days or less without consent.

Hence, this:
http://capitolwords.org/date/2011/12/17/S8783-7_orders-for-tuesday-december-20-2011-through-monday/

Really, do you think it is so cut and dried as you posted ??

 

[thaiboxerken]

for more than three days. They can be in recess for 3 days or less without consent.

Hence, this:
http://capitolwords.org/date/2011/12/17/S8783-7_orders-for-tuesday-december-20-2011-through-monday/

Really, do you think it is so cut and dried as you posted ??

Apparently so. This is such a non issue. There is a reason this only lasted half a day on fox as news.

 

[ZirconBlue]

You should probably talk to the Senate Majority Leader about this. He is, if I recall corrcectly, a Democrat.

Don't worry, I've got him on speed-dial.

And, just for the record, my position doesn't depend on which party is doing it. I spoke out against Democrats blocking W's judicial appointments, and now that the Republicans have ratcheted the obstructionism up another notch, I'll continue to speak out against it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

for more than three days. They can be in recess for 3 days or less without consent.

So then this must mean the president can make a recess appointment when the Senate is in "recess" over a weekend. Or for the evening. Or for lunch.

Hence, this:
http://capitolwords.org/date/2011/12/17/S8783-7_orders-for-tuesday-december-20-2011-through-monday/

I don't know what you think this is supposed to prove. All it does is state the Senate will convene periodically in pro forma sessions over the winter break. It certainly doesn't mean the Senate cannot conduct business, as has already been demonstrated.

Really, do you think it is so cut and dried as you posted ??

I suspect Obama thought it was "so cut and dried as {I} posted" in 2007 because he signed on to the pro forma session scheme then with the express purpose of preventing any Bush recess appointments.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What does "Pro Forma" mean, Grizzly?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What does "Pro Forma" mean, Grizzly?

In this context, a pro forma session of the Senate is defined here.

Any other "zingers"?

 

[Trakar]

So then this must mean the president can make a recess appointment when the Senate is in "recess" over a weekend. Or for the evening. Or for lunch...

Historically, it has been done in as little time as the moments between the closing of one Senate session and the opening of the next Senate session:

"...When the first session of the 58th Congress ended, at noon on
December 7, 1903, and the second session began soon thereafter, President Theodore Roosevelt made over 160 recess appointments—mostly of military officers. President Roosevelt treated the period between these sessions as a 'constructive recess.'... "

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

Despite my dislike of the man, the administration and what he is doing to the progressive movement in general, Obama's actions in this regard are hardly controversial, yet alone unprecedented or without standing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In this context, a pro forma session of the Senate is defined here.

Any other "zingers"?

So it's just a way to satisfy a requirement just to give the illusion of not being in recess. Ok, got it.

Feel free to make this into big news, try Fox News.

 

[Bri]

Article II, Section 2 states: "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."

Article I, Section 5 states: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

The House did not consent to a recess. The Senate, therefore, cannot be in recess.

Furthermore, no reasonable person could assert the Senate can pass bills while in recess, which they did (and Obama signed without objection to the status of the Senate which passed it) in the same status they were in when Obama made his "recess" appointments.

Since it is indisputable that A: the House did not consent to a recess, and B: the Senate was capable of conducting business (as evidenced by the passage of a bill the president then signed into law), then it is not possible the Senate was in recess and unable to conduct business.

If the Senate was not in recess and was able to conduct business, the recess appointments clause cannot be invoked and the appointments were unconstitutional.

QED.

But then there's Section 3 of Article 2, which seems to imply that the president can recess either house of Congress on "extraordinary occasions":

[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.​

-Bri

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Historically, it has been done in as little time as the moments between the closing of one Senate session and the opening of the next Senate session:

"...When the first session of the 58th Congress ended, at noon on
December 7, 1903, and the second session began soon thereafter, President Theodore Roosevelt made over 160 recess appointments—mostly of military officers. President Roosevelt treated the period between these sessions as a 'constructive recess.'... "

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P

Despite my dislike of the man, the administration and what he is doing to the progressive movement in general, Obama's actions in this regard are hardly controversial, yet alone unprecedented or without standing.

If recess appointments like Roosevelt's (and, hence, Obama's) are valid, then what was the purpose of the advice and consent clause?

Also, I'm unaware of any legal challenges being made to those appointments, so the question of constitutionality is unaddressed.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So it's just a way to satisfy a requirement just to give the illusion of not being in recess. Ok, got it.

Yeah, they do other stuff to reinforce this illusion -- like passing bills that the president then signs into law without complaint as to their supposed inability to conduct business.

That Senate, a regular David Copperfield with the illusions, aren't they?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But then there's Section 3 of Article 2, which seems to imply that the president can recess either house of Congress on "extraordinary occasions"

Whether or not this power can be used is a moot point, as Obama did not step in to resolve a disagreement on the adjournment of Congress, nor did he adjourn them himself.

 

[Trakar]

If recess appointments like Roosevelt's (and, hence, Obama's) are valid, then what was the purpose of the advice and consent clause?

Also, I'm unaware of any legal challenges being made to those appointments, so the question of constitutionality is unaddressed.

Roosevelt's appointment was not the only such instance but these precedents are well established and unchallenged. If congress wishes to make these actions illegal they need to take action to establish such laws otherwise the precedents stand as the legal guide. That is the problem with surrendering authority and power, such as, for instance, the authority to declare war. If you gradually cede the ability of the president to initiate and carry out military action without the need to formally declare war upon the focus of that action, then you dilute and gradually render meaningless the constitutional right to declare war. Obama and Roosevelt aren't alone in this practice, they are merely following in the footsteps of a long line of Chief Executive Officers of this nation stretching back to the founding fathers themselves.