Recess Appointments Unconstitutional?

[Dubya]

The quote came at the end because somehow you edited out your /quote.

It would be up to the administration to take it to SCOTUS. The intent of the Constitution is to have the Senate vet appointments and not to play games avoiding it. Since this has been done before by Presidents, it's up to the administration to determine if they can get a favorable decision from SCOTUS, or they may decide to allow a President to continue doing such appointments in that manner and not get a ruling.

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution, states:



Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Ike put 3 people on the Supreme Court with recess appointments.

Where's the beef?

Obama Can't Make Recess Appointments Without a Recess | Debate Club | US News Opinion

On Tuesday, the Senate gaveled in to start the second session of the 112nd Congress. On Wednesday, Obama declared the Senate to be in recess so he could "recess appoint" Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and radical union lawyers to the National Labor Relations Board. He called them "recess appointments" even though the Senate was not in recess. It's ridiculous.

please find me where it says that the Pres can declare Congress to be in recess.

The Senate is in recess when it's not having a session. That's what both houses call it when they aren't working.

I do not have a problem with a President making recess appointments, so why do you? I pointed out Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and the idea is these positions are necessary for the government to properly function. The idea also is the Senate would respect the President by reviewing his nominations and not play these games. The Senate shouldn't be allowed to go on recess without vetting the President's nominations and taking it to a vote.

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.

Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Notice the Article talks about vacancies that may happen during a recess! That is only possible if the job is filled, meaning the Senate did it's job while in session.

When the Senate returns from recess, they can either approve the recess appointment or the appointment expires at the end of their session, the job becomes available again and the President can fill it with a recess appointment.

It should be obvious to anyone that a Senate not filling any position is not doing it's job.

 

[Care4all]

What Obama take an unconstitutional action ?

And apparently, ALL presidents before Obama as well...not like Obama invented this....bush had 171 recess appointments and 29 under the circumstance that Obama used...??? guess this is going to the supreme court...

And talk about what the meaning of is, is.

the court made its decision on the word "the" "the recess".....

congress needs to stop the bull crap of 22 second sessions as making them "in session".....that's utter bullcrap too and definitely NOT what the constitution or founders intended as being in session, in my opinion.

Before Obama, presidents made the appointments when the Senate was actually in recess.

Obama is the one who took it upon himself to tell the Senate that they were in recess when they were still in session.

BIG difference.

no Amelia, the senate was not in session, unless you think our founders said congress in session for 22 seconds with 1 person present is in session............? I'm CERTAIN 22 seconds with 1 senator present IS NOT Congress IN SESSION according to our founders and the Constitution.

president bush made 171 recess appointments of which 29 of them were made under the same circumstance as this of obamas...

I don't think presidents should make recess appointments IF congress IS in session and able to do their job....

I don't think the Senate is in session or able to do their job without a quorum present or with just 2 senators opening the session for 30 seconds...that's congress trying to get around the Constitution, NOT the president....

 

[usmcstinger]

Part of a President's Oath of Office: I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.[

All Members of the House and Senate take a similar Oath
"that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

When I enlisted in the USMC and served in Vietnam, I upheld my oath. Have our Federally Elected Officials upheld theirs?

 

[Dubya]

Part of a President's Oath of Office: I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.[

All Members of the House and Senate take a similar Oath
"that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

When I enlisted in the USMC and served in Vietnam, I upheld my oath. Have our Federally Elected Officials upheld theirs?

The Constitution allows recess appointments, which is the subject of this thread and Semper fi.

 

[Sallow]

The quote came at the end because somehow you edited out your /quote.

It would be up to the administration to take it to SCOTUS. The intent of the Constitution is to have the Senate vet appointments and not to play games avoiding it. Since this has been done before by Presidents, it's up to the administration to determine if they can get a favorable decision from SCOTUS, or they may decide to allow a President to continue doing such appointments in that manner and not get a ruling.

Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution, states:



Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Ike put 3 people on the Supreme Court with recess appointments.

Where's the beef?

Obama Can't Make Recess Appointments Without a Recess | Debate Club | US News Opinion

On Tuesday, the Senate gaveled in to start the second session of the 112nd Congress. On Wednesday, Obama declared the Senate to be in recess so he could "recess appoint" Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and radical union lawyers to the National Labor Relations Board. He called them "recess appointments" even though the Senate was not in recess. It's ridiculous.


please find me where it says that the Pres can declare Congress to be in recess.

Republican Senators were playing parlimentary games.

And the rule should be that they have to have bodies in the Senate. It's bullshit to be at home while the Senate is in "session." Just like it's bullshit to call a filibuster by simply objecting to a bill.

 

[Care4all]

so, as the bottom line for me.... I don't believe any President should make any appointments without the senate's approval when the Senate is full bodied and in session with a quorum, where they can have a vote on an appointee...

If a quorum is not present in the Senate, and they can not have a vote to advise and consent an appointee, then they are in recess...they are certainly NOT in session, and imho...the only other thing they can be other than in session, is in recess....


then the Constitution provides for a method in which the President can make such appointments, temporarily....

There can be enough Senator's in town to have a vote on an appointee, or NOT... equates to in session or in recess....in my interpretation of what the constitution's intent on this....

Sooo, what I am looking forward to is a suit on whether the Senators all out of town and in their home States but 1 or 2, is truly what the Constitution's intent on being in session vs being in recess means.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obama Can't Make Recess Appointments Without a Recess | Debate Club | US News Opinion

On Tuesday, the Senate gaveled in to start the second session of the 112nd Congress. On Wednesday, Obama declared the Senate to be in recess so he could "recess appoint" Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and radical union lawyers to the National Labor Relations Board. He called them "recess appointments" even though the Senate was not in recess. It's ridiculous.

please find me where it says that the Pres can declare Congress to be in recess.

The Senate is in recess when it's not having a session. That's what both houses call it when they aren't working.

I do not have a problem with a President making recess appointments, so why do you? I pointed out Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and the idea is these positions are necessary for the government to properly function. The idea also is the Senate would respect the President by reviewing his nominations and not play these games. The Senate shouldn't be allowed to go on recess without vetting the President's nominations and taking it to a vote.

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.

Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Notice the Article talks about vacancies that may happen during a recess! That is only possible if the job is filled, meaning the Senate did it's job while in session.

When the Senate returns from recess, they can either approve the recess appointment or the appointment expires at the end of their session, the job becomes available again and the President can fill it with a recess appointment.

It should be obvious to anyone that a Senate not filling any position is not doing it's job.

Repeating for the terminally liberal;

The PRES does not have the power to declare the senate in recess.


The weekend is not in recess

Fuck your dumb as fuck

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions – some lasting less than a minute – were a sham.

Just the SSDD from the Rs. Anything they can do to keep government from working FOR the people, anything they can do to hobble the president. All they're good for is costing us money.

 

[Dubya]

What Obama take an unconstitutional action ?

And apparently, ALL presidents before Obama as well...not like Obama invented this....bush had 171 recess appointments and 29 under the circumstance that Obama used...??? guess this is going to the supreme court...

And talk about what the meaning of is, is.

the court made its decision on the word "the" "the recess".....

congress needs to stop the bull crap of 22 second sessions as making them "in session".....that's utter bullcrap too and definitely NOT what the constitution or founders intended as being in session, in my opinion.

Before Obama, presidents made the appointments when the Senate was actually in recess.

Obama is the one who took it upon himself to tell the Senate that they were in recess when they were still in session.

BIG difference.

That is a total lie. Recess appointments are in the Constitution and have been done since the days of Washington. All Presidents have made recess appointments. The appointments are only good until the next session of Congress ends, but the Senate is suppose to vote on appointments and not leave the job vacant.

Originally, Congress might only be in session for a few months out of the year.

 

[Dubya]

please find me where it says that the Pres can declare Congress to be in recess.

The Senate is in recess when it's not having a session. That's what both houses call it when they aren't working.

I do not have a problem with a President making recess appointments, so why do you? I pointed out Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and the idea is these positions are necessary for the government to properly function. The idea also is the Senate would respect the President by reviewing his nominations and not play these games. The Senate shouldn't be allowed to go on recess without vetting the President's nominations and taking it to a vote.

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.

Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Notice the Article talks about vacancies that may happen during a recess! That is only possible if the job is filled, meaning the Senate did it's job while in session.

When the Senate returns from recess, they can either approve the recess appointment or the appointment expires at the end of their session, the job becomes available again and the President can fill it with a recess appointment.

It should be obvious to anyone that a Senate not filling any position is not doing it's job.

Repeating for the terminally liberal;

The PRES does not have the power to declare the senate in recess.


The weekend is not in recess

Fuck your dumb as fuck

It wasn't a weekend, so why are you saying it was?

 

[Papageorgio]

What Obama take an unconstitutional action ?

And apparently, ALL presidents before Obama as well...not like Obama invented this....bush had 171 recess appointments and 29 under the circumstance that Obama used...??? guess this is going to the supreme court...

And talk about what the meaning of is, is.

the court made its decision on the word "the" "the recess".....

congress needs to stop the bull crap of 22 second sessions as making them "in session".....that's utter bullcrap too and definitely NOT what the constitution or founders intended as being in session, in my opinion.

I doubt this decision survives for long.

If it does..it's going to make governance extremely difficult.

So circumventing the law for convenience is acceptable?

 

[Care4all]

please find me where it says that the Pres can declare Congress to be in recess.

The Senate is in recess when it's not having a session. That's what both houses call it when they aren't working.

I do not have a problem with a President making recess appointments, so why do you? I pointed out Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and the idea is these positions are necessary for the government to properly function. The idea also is the Senate would respect the President by reviewing his nominations and not play these games. The Senate shouldn't be allowed to go on recess without vetting the President's nominations and taking it to a vote.

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.

Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Notice the Article talks about vacancies that may happen during a recess! That is only possible if the job is filled, meaning the Senate did it's job while in session.

When the Senate returns from recess, they can either approve the recess appointment or the appointment expires at the end of their session, the job becomes available again and the President can fill it with a recess appointment.

It should be obvious to anyone that a Senate not filling any position is not doing it's job.

Repeating for the terminally liberal;

The PRES does not have the power to declare the senate in recess.


The weekend is not in recess

Fuck your dumb as fuck

Twothumbs
I agree that the president doesn't have the right to do such on his own, but I also believe that the Senate is NOT in session to be able to advise and consent on an appointee of the Presidents when they are simply having 2 people show up for 30 seconds to claim they are in session and this should be decided by the courts as to the constitutional intent of the founders for giving the President the ability to appoint recess appointments....

Why do you think the founders wrote in to the constitution that the President could make recess appointments, on a temporary basis?

Why?

What was their intention? Why give this power to the president at all?

Why not just make it where only through the senate can an appointee be appointed....but they didn't make it that way...so again, why?

I think a suit needs to take place to determine what is "in session" and what is "in recess" when it comes to the Constitution and its intent, on this matter....

 

[Katzndogz]

Recess appointments are legal and constitutional. This means that the senate must actually be in recess. In this case, it wasn't. That's what made it unconstitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Senate is in recess when it's not having a session. That's what both houses call it when they aren't working.

I do not have a problem with a President making recess appointments, so why do you? I pointed out Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and the idea is these positions are necessary for the government to properly function. The idea also is the Senate would respect the President by reviewing his nominations and not play these games. The Senate shouldn't be allowed to go on recess without vetting the President's nominations and taking it to a vote.

Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Notice the Article talks about vacancies that may happen during a recess! That is only possible if the job is filled, meaning the Senate did it's job while in session.

When the Senate returns from recess, they can either approve the recess appointment or the appointment expires at the end of their session, the job becomes available again and the President can fill it with a recess appointment.

It should be obvious to anyone that a Senate not filling any position is not doing it's job.

Repeating for the terminally liberal;

The PRES does not have the power to declare the senate in recess.


The weekend is not in recess

Fuck your dumb as fuck

Twothumbs
I agree that the president doesn't have the right to do such on his own, but I also believe that the Senate is NOT in session to be able to advise and consent on an appointee of the Presidents when they are simply having 2 people show up for 30 seconds to claim they are in session and this should be decided by the courts as to the constitutional intent of the founders for giving the President the ability to appoint recess appointments....

Why do you think the founders wrote in to the constitution that the President could make recess appointments, on a temporary basis?

Why?

What was their intention? Why give this power to the president at all?

Why not just make it where only through the senate can an appointee be appointed....but they didn't make it that way...so again, why?

I think a suit needs to take place to determine what is "in session" and what is "in recess" when it comes to the Constitution and its intent, on this matter....

Yes. And this was the suit.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Senate is in recess when it's not having a session. That's what both houses call it when they aren't working.

I do not have a problem with a President making recess appointments, so why do you? I pointed out Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and the idea is these positions are necessary for the government to properly function. The idea also is the Senate would respect the President by reviewing his nominations and not play these games. The Senate shouldn't be allowed to go on recess without vetting the President's nominations and taking it to a vote.

Source: Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

Notice the Article talks about vacancies that may happen during a recess! That is only possible if the job is filled, meaning the Senate did it's job while in session.

When the Senate returns from recess, they can either approve the recess appointment or the appointment expires at the end of their session, the job becomes available again and the President can fill it with a recess appointment.

It should be obvious to anyone that a Senate not filling any position is not doing it's job.

Repeating for the terminally liberal;

The PRES does not have the power to declare the senate in recess.


The weekend is not in recess

Fuck your dumb as fuck

Twothumbs
I agree that the president doesn't have the right to do such on his own, but I also believe that the Senate is NOT in session to be able to advise and consent on an appointee of the Presidents when they are simply having 2 people show up for 30 seconds to claim they are in session and this should be decided by the courts as to the constitutional intent of the founders for giving the President the ability to appoint recess appointments....

Why do you think the founders wrote in to the constitution that the President could make recess appointments, on a temporary basis?

Why?

What was their intention? Why give this power to the president at all?

Why not just make it where only through the senate can an appointee be appointed....but they didn't make it that way...so again, why?

I think a suit needs to take place to determine what is "in session" and what is "in recess" when it comes to the Constitution and its intent, on this matter....

The Dems started this practice to keep Bush from making recess appointments, yet now they whine about the Republicans doing it.

If they want to play games then they shouldn't complain when they themselves get played.

 

[Care4all]

Repeating for the terminally liberal;

The PRES does not have the power to declare the senate in recess.


The weekend is not in recess

Fuck your dumb as fuck

Twothumbs
I agree that the president doesn't have the right to do such on his own, but I also believe that the Senate is NOT in session to be able to advise and consent on an appointee of the Presidents when they are simply having 2 people show up for 30 seconds to claim they are in session and this should be decided by the courts as to the constitutional intent of the founders for giving the President the ability to appoint recess appointments....

Why do you think the founders wrote in to the constitution that the President could make recess appointments, on a temporary basis?

Why?

What was their intention? Why give this power to the president at all?

Why not just make it where only through the senate can an appointee be appointed....but they didn't make it that way...so again, why?

I think a suit needs to take place to determine what is "in session" and what is "in recess" when it comes to the Constitution and its intent, on this matter....

Yes. And this was the suit.

Then I await this to go to the supreme court....

 

[Care4all]

I await a supreme court decision, because if this ruling stands then ALL senates can ALWAYS be ''in session'' with just 1-2 senators there for 30 seconds, which means they can ALWAYS prevent a President from his constitutional right to make appointments when the Senate is unable to.....and the Senate is unable to without having a quorum, present, in the Senate.....

me thinks the Senate is in recess when the Senators go home and are not present in Washington to do their job, of advice and consent....so let's see what the SC says....hope it makes it there...

on another subject but sort of related....every year a report of how many days both Congresses are in session comes out at the end of the year and I've always thought that congress does not spend enough days working in session.....

WELL guess it is A LOT WORSE than those reports show because now we know that the Senate counts itself in session, working, for just 2 senators there for 30 + seconds every 3 days...... sheesh....

 

[Amelia]

And apparently, ALL presidents before Obama as well...not like Obama invented this....bush had 171 recess appointments and 29 under the circumstance that Obama used...??? guess this is going to the supreme court...

And talk about what the meaning of is, is.

the court made its decision on the word "the" "the recess".....

congress needs to stop the bull crap of 22 second sessions as making them "in session".....that's utter bullcrap too and definitely NOT what the constitution or founders intended as being in session, in my opinion.

Before Obama, presidents made the appointments when the Senate was actually in recess.

Obama is the one who took it upon himself to tell the Senate that they were in recess when they were still in session.

BIG difference.

no Amelia, the senate was not in session, unless you think our founders said congress in session for 22 seconds with 1 person present is in session............? I'm CERTAIN 22 seconds with 1 senator present IS NOT Congress IN SESSION according to our founders and the Constitution.

president bush made 171 recess appointments of which 29 of them were made under the same circumstance as this of obamas...

I don't think presidents should make recess appointments IF congress IS in session and able to do their job....

I don't think the Senate is in session or able to do their job without a quorum present or with just 2 senators opening the session for 30 seconds...that's congress trying to get around the Constitution, NOT the president....

It doesn't matter what you think. The Senate was in session, and the President's action was unconstitutional.

Reid was still using the existence of the pro forma sessions at the beginning of this new session as an excuse to rush deliberations. He was able to get started on them right away instead of waiting for the three days usually needed because of the technicality of the Senate already being in Session.

The Congress gets to decide when it is in session. Not you. Not the president. That's the law.

 

[Amelia]

And apparently, ALL presidents before Obama as well...not like Obama invented this....bush had 171 recess appointments and 29 under the circumstance that Obama used...??? guess this is going to the supreme court...

And talk about what the meaning of is, is.

the court made its decision on the word "the" "the recess".....

congress needs to stop the bull crap of 22 second sessions as making them "in session".....that's utter bullcrap too and definitely NOT what the constitution or founders intended as being in session, in my opinion.

Before Obama, presidents made the appointments when the Senate was actually in recess.

Obama is the one who took it upon himself to tell the Senate that they were in recess when they were still in session.

BIG difference.

That is a total lie. Recess appointments are in the Constitution and have been done since the days of Washington. All Presidents have made recess appointments. The appointments are only good until the next session of Congress ends, but the Senate is suppose to vote on appointments and not leave the job vacant.

Originally, Congress might only be in session for a few months out of the year.

There is no lie. I did not say recess appointments were not made or were not in the Constitution. Of course they were.

The difference between what past presidents did and what Obama did, is that past presidents waited until the Senate was actually in recess. Obama said to hell with the constitutionally-assigned power of our Legislative Branch to determine when it is in session. He unilaterally declared the Senate to be in recess when it wasn't, and then he made the appointments.

 

[Care4all]

yep, the senate does get to make their own rules, but they too are subject to the checks and balances of the system....I await this to go to the supreme court....