An appeals court has ruled that President Obama's "recess appointments"--made when the Senate was actually still in session--are unconstitutional. From The Washington Post: Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...f0fa14-6707-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html This will almost certainly go all the way to the Supreme Court. However, as an article in Breitbart.com notes, it is likely to suffer the same fate" there: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...bama-His-Recess-Appointments-Unconstitutional
This is what happens when politicians act like petulant children and set precedent... it comes back to bite them in the arse when the shoe is on the other foot. The democrats started this whole pro-forma session nonsense to block GWB from making recess appointments, and now the GOP is paying them back in kind. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so blow it out your pie hole Harry and Barry.
Ed Meese vindicated, Obama stunned... FLASHBACK--Ed Meese: Obama's Recess Appointments 'Breathtaking Violation' of Constitution January 24, 2012 - Former Attorney General Ed Meese says the U.S. House of Representatives should pass a resolution condemning President Barack Obama for acting unconstitutionally in appointing a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members to the National Labor Relations Board without Senate confirmation and when Congress was still in session. See also: White House Calls NLRB Ruling Unprecedented January 25, 2013 The White House strongly disagreed with a federal appeals court ruling against the recess appointment of members of the National Labor Relations Board at a time when Congress was not in recess.
The Court, if they even hear this which is unlikely, will probably reverse it. They traditionally give the President a lot of leeway in regards to nominations. Frankly they will probably allow this because its Congress's fault for not writing the law clearer. And there is precedent for this being done, Bush did it with Bolton to get him in the UN so I do not see anyway the Court will uphold this decision and they shouldn't. If Congress doesn't want this to happen they have the power to stop it. The Supreme Court really does not like to legislate.
Bush did a real recess appointment, not like Obama who did it while congress was in session. The Senators went out of their way to meet every 3 day to keep a recess appointment from legally happening. So what Obama did is much different than what Bush did.
In the real world yes but on paper no. Technically they were not present to vote so its the same as what Bush did. Of course he bent the rules about as far as you can but he did follow the rules. This is why the Court will probably allow it so that Congress can rewrite the rule. The Supreme Court, all of them, absolutely hate repeat issues coming into their court. If they uphold this and its allowed to stand then the rule will not be settled and another President may try it again. Throughout the history of the Supreme Court they have always sided with the President unless there is clear evidence he is in violation. He bent the rules here but didn't break them so I don't see how they will uphold this. If they do take the case you can be assured they will side with the President. Its a done deal at that point. - - - Updated - - - In the real world yes but on paper no. Technically they were not present to vote so its the same as what Bush did. Of course he bent the rules about as far as you can but he did follow the rules. This is why the Court will probably allow it so that Congress can rewrite the rule. The Supreme Court, all of them, absolutely hate repeat issues coming into their court. If they uphold this and its allowed to stand then the rule will not be settled and another President may try it again. Throughout the history of the Supreme Court they have always sided with the President unless there is clear evidence he is in violation. He bent the rules here but didn't break them so I don't see how they will uphold this. If they do take the case you can be assured they will side with the President. Its a done deal at that point.
this ruling declares virtually all recess appointments made by every President for the last 220 years Unconstitutional. This means that John Bolten was unconstitutionally appointed ambassador to the U.N., It allows recess appointments only if they occur between two sessions of Congress (at the end of the year) and the vacancy must occur during that same period. The Senate can now shut down just about any agency by refusing to approve a nominee,
Each branch of the federal govt. is independent of the others and is entitled to set its own rules, not to have those rules interpreted adversely by another branch of the federal govt. It's called checks and balances. They used to teach this stuff in high school when I was a kid.
I have studied the Constitution for over 40 years, I know what checks and balances .are, the recess appointment power is based on Article II section 2-3 which reads The Court has now defined what constitutes a recess very, very narrowly. So narrowly in fact that it could well eliminate one form of Presidential veto, the pocket where he doesn't veto it because Congress has adjourned making it impossible for him to send it back with his reasons for veto.
Not really, Article II section II still remains in effect so the President can still make recess appointments. However the Congress can modify the rule without amending the Constitution simply by sticking to the wording of it. A simple bill saying that while Congress is "officially" in session, the President is not allowed to make recess appointments would suffice. Currently there is no such stipulation on the President and the rule is that if the Senate simply isn't present he can make a recess appointment. Once again, its a huge bending of the rules but technically is allowed.
The problem here is that the Supreme Court has traditionally stayed away from interpreting rules of Congress. When its something they have the power to do then the Court usually gives it back to them to do it. If Congress can fix this, which they can, I don't see the Court defining their rules for them. That's why I don't think they will even take this case.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Another jailhouse lawyer. Are you suggesting that the case will be reheard by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sitting En Banc? - - - Updated - - - Are you a lawyer?
You are asserting that former President Bush made "recess" appointments when the Senate was not actually in recess? Are you quite certain about that? As an August 2, 2005 article in The Seattle Times notes: Here is the link: http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2002415579_bolton02.html
You make the issue too complicated. It is really very simple. Who gets to define when the Senate is in session, the Senate or the President? The Constitution says the Senate so I doubt the Supremes will touch the thing letting the Appeals Court decison stand and causing the appointments to crash and burn.
well I am not a lawyer but I did stay in a Holliday Inn Express last night..sorry could not resist that here is what a friend of mine who is a lawyer said and I am paraphrasing him here so if this is in error please feel free to correct me The trouble is that Congress was not in a recess because the House of Representatives never consented to a recess, as required under the Constitution, Article I, section 5. without the House of Representatives consenting to Senate adjournment Congress could not be in recess therefore no recess appointments could be made Clause 4: Adjournment Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days. Often, a House will hold pro forma sessions every three days; such sessions are merely held to fulfill the constitutional requirement, and not to conduct business. Furthermore, neither House may meet in any place other than that designated for both Houses (the Capitol), without the consent of the other House. as long as the pro forma sessions were being held then Congress was not in recess
The court ruled that the only timeframe that a recess appointment was valid was during the period between actual sessions of Congress, which usually occur at the end of the year, all other recesses do not count. So unless the vacancy occurs during the end of the year adjournment and it is filled during that time frame it is invalid. The Court ruled that this is the only time it is possible for the Congress to actually be out of session. This is obviously going to the Supreme Court and they will have to deal with it, since it will invalidate almost all recess appointments (and thus the actions those officials made during those recess appointments) for the last 220 years. The legal nightmare this could cause is massive beyond belief.
There is also the language about rules... \ Article 1 section 5. Nothing in there anywhere granting the president the power to define anything already defined by the rules.
