Patterico's Pontifications

1/25/2013

Obama “Recess” Appointments Unconstitutional

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

Because there was no “recess.”

Not odd to see this guy violating the Constitution. Just odd to see a court calling him on it.

105 Responses to “Obama “Recess” Appointments Unconstitutional”

  1. There were lower courts that held Obamacare unconstitutional. Let’s see how the Supreme Court rules.

    steve (369bc6)

  2. John Roberts is up to the task of declaring just about anything food stamp does constitutional.

    Freaky perv.

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  3. Bet they blow him off. Irony.

    In other news, Doug Limerick on AM Radio this AM. “Home sales down in December but on the whole a pretty good year.” Oh, really?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-25/new-home-sales-miss-expectations-post-biggest-drop-february-2011

    EU banks returned 140 Billion to the ECB loaned under LTRO, well above optimistic predictions.

    Result Markets up, Treasury yields up, euro up. Modest backlog in Treasuries to be auctioned to payback Federal pension funds along with $500 Billion to rollover Feb 15 to March 15.

    Look for a failed auction in the 4 week to 7 year maturities. Business has shown they can make money with layoffs and part-time Obamajobforce.

    gary gulrud (64d926)

  4. 2. Not that Mr. Roberts has a spine, ancient George Will speculates Obamacare’s tax must remain inconsequential to pass the Robert’s constitutionality test.

    Poison pill, if only.

    gary gulrud (64d926)

  5. mostest expensive poison pill ever

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  6. No mas:

    http://www.dw.de/spain-banking-woes-mount-as-bad-loans-soar/a-16532916

    200 Billion euros in bad loans, laying off another 20K tellers and loan officers, and no peseta.

    They run toros thru don’t they?

    gary gulrud (64d926)

  7. I never knew there was even a question about it, I just thought it was an issue that no one cared enough to do anything about it.

    So now that it is clear that his unconstitutional move was really unconstitutional, what will happen next? Nothing? A Supreme Court clerk changing locks on office doors?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  8. So when does Obama have to turn himself over to the department of corrections?

    CrustyB (69f730)

  9. Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/25/2013 @ 8:41 am

    Can’t you just see Dear Leader channeling his inner Andrew Jackson and saying, “Well, the court has made its decision, now let’s see them enforce it.”

    JVW (4826a9)

  10. “There were lower courts that held Obamacare unconstitutional. Let’s see how the Supreme Court rules.”

    steve – Thank you for your concern.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. Fustercluck!

    A year’s worth of NLRB decisions down the drain.

    What else is affected you ask? How about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  12. Obama’s lawyers will argue that the recess appointments are Constitutional under the umbrella of “regulating interstate commerce.”

    Elephant Stone (ac7139)

  13. Racist court decision!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. Care to attempt to distinguish John Bolton’s appointment?

    Not that that makes it right, but it does establish that this is how it works.

    Jamie (029f5e)

  15. “Not that that makes it right, but it does establish that this is how it works.”

    Jamie – By all means, go ahead and explain away.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. that sounds like a lot of work the point is that these NLRB appointments are tricksy and unconstitutional

    I wonder if the appointees have to pay back their moneys what they were paid for participating in this illegal scheme

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  17. The NRLB was among the agencies most vulnerable to this kind of ruling. Which was why Obama pushing for these unconstitutional appointments was a very stupid move, strategically.

    Its an example I think of the incompetence of the Obama administration and Obama himself.

    SPQR (768505)

  18. Apparently there is a conflict between the appeals courts on this issue that only the Supreme Court can resolve, so the Obama Administration probably will ignore it pending appeal. In addition, I assume that those adversely impacted by an NLRB decision (issued when one of the recess appointments was on the Board) can appeal.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  19. Sorry. They can sue, not appeal.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  20. In 1,2,3—Blame W and HW.

    mg (31009b)

  21. Care to attempt to distinguish John Bolton’s appointment?

    Not that that makes it right, but it does establish that this is how it works.

    Comment by Jamie (029f5e) — 1/25/2013 @ 9:42 am

    Bolton was appointed during an actual recess. So that is one difference.

    JD (4fbbe6)

  22. Although there is no excuse for him, how long until obama says, “pardon me”

    mg (31009b)

  23. I wonder what Governor Romney thinks about these recess appointments. I think I’ll hold off coming to any firm conclusions til he weighs in.

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  24. Bolton was appointed during an actual recess. So that is one difference.
    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/25/2013 @ 10:01 am

    I can’t believe the regular posters here keep referring to facts. Can’t you be more imaginative?
    ;-)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  25. Comment by Jamie (029f5e) — 1/25/2013 @ 9:42 am
    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/25/2013 @ 10:01 am

    Even if Bolton had been improperly appointed as U.N.Ambassador, his conduct at the U.N. does not effect the vast majority of Americans in the manner that NLRB decisions (Boeing plant in SC?), or that Consumer Protection thingie does.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  26. MD – crazy, huh?

    JD (b63a52)

  27. The explanation at the volokh conspiracy makes the difference between ‘inter-session’ recesses and ‘intra-session’ recesses.

    As mentioned, John Bolton was an ‘inter-session’ recess and the NLRB guys were ‘intra-session’ recesses. Pretty close to the Senate breaking for lunch and the President shooting in his appointments.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  28. Pretty close to the Senate breaking for lunch and the President shooting in his appointments.

    That distinction IIRC was made by the judge that wrote the opinion.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  29. One of the more interesting parts of the decision – which means it’s almost certain to get picked up on appeal – is the claim that recess appointments can only be made if the vacancy is created during the recess.

    Which is to say: according to this opinion, if the SecDef dies during a recess, the President can appoint a new one; but if he dies the day before a recess, the President must wait until after the recess ends to appoint a new one.

    I have to say that *on its face* this is how I would have read the recess clause, but it’s really troubling in implications and flies in the face of more than a century and a half of precedent.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  30. Then maybe it’s time for the courts to address the issue and fix it correctly, aphrael. Precedent is important but not if it’s wrong.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  31. Wasn’t the original point of recess appointments that it enabled the Exec to fill an emergency vacancy when Congress had returned home by horse, and there was insufficient time to make them aware of the vacancy, get them back to DC, etc …?

    JD (b63a52)

  32. Aren’t the courts allowed one Dred Scott per Century?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  33. Askeptic – comparing this to dred scott seems overblown.

    JD – you’ve got the same issue now, though. If the Chief of Staff of the US Army were to keel over and die tomorrow, and the Senate were out of session and refused to come back in session, it would be a problem; the recess appointment power (as presently constituted) is in some ways a failsafe ensuring that the Senate handle such things rather than indefinitely postponing/deferring/ignoring them.

    DRJ – granted that precedents can be wrong, even when they’re wrong, sometimes the best course of action is to let them lie. Courts have allowed recess appointments of vacancies which were created before the recess for essentially *pragmatic* reasons; I don’t really see a *structural* benefit to changing that (although I can see a short-term political benefit to the Republicans today, which I think turns into a long-term loss the next time the relative positions of the parties invert).

    aphrael (efbf91)

  34. recess appointment power (as presently constituted) is in some ways a failsafe ensuring that the Senate handle such things rather than indefinitely postponing/deferring/ignoring the

    By all means, they should amend the Constitution to incorporate that.

    Aphrael – did you miss the part about traveling by horse? We don’t have thensame situation now, not even close.

    JD (b63a52)

  35. we don’t have “the Senate is physically incapable of getting there in a timely fashion” but we do still have “the Senate refuses to get there in a timely fashion.”

    I don’t see anything in the language of the clause which distinguishes between the two.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  36. I don’t recall Senators refusing to go to work in DC. Am I missing something?

    JD (b63a52)

  37. Also – the interpretation which allows the President to make appointments during a recess, for vacancies which were created before the recess, dates to the 1830s. At this point I’d say it’s pretty well embedded in the system.

    Honestly: having the courts redefine the clause in a way which hasn’t been used in the memory of anyone who is remembered by anyone who is alive today seems like an exercise in theology.

    (Note that i’m not talking about the active controversy over whether there’s a recess when there are pro forma sessions; while I think the Senate are being jerks about it, I think Obama’s wrong about that one.)

    aphrael (402fa3)

  38. Re-reading Volokh, it would seem the ‘sessions’ referred to are those beginning Jan 3 of each year.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/sessions-of-congress

    The Volokh claim is both Bolton and Pryor were intrasessional. Since Bolton served from August on that would seem to be the case.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  39. JD – yeah, I think you are missing something. :)

    Part of the ruling was that, when a vacancy is created while the Senate is in session, the President may not fill it during subsequent recesses.

    If that’s true, then in the hypothetical world where the Senate just refused to go back into session for an extended period, the President would be powerless to fill offices of the United States.

    The part of the ruling saying you can’t make ‘recess’ appointments during pro forma sessions I’m fine with.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  40. redefine the clause

    Are you serious?

    JD (b63a52)

  41. hypothetical world where the Senate just refused to go back into session

    In the real world, i do recall Dem legislators doing this.

    When was the last time this was used to fill a vacancy in an actual emergency situation?

    JD (b63a52)

  42. Since five of the members are ‘illegal’, a quorum is necessary to conduct business and DRJ implies suit must be accepted by SOTUS, the NLRB is prolly out of business for a while.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  43. SCOTUS* Doh.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  44. Yeah, I am. Since the 1850s at least, the clause has been interpreted to allow the president to make appointments, during a recess, for vacancies which started before the recess.

    The opinion handed down today changes that interpretation.

    How is that not a redefinition? It’s meant [x] for 160 years, now it means [y].

    Now, you can argue that [x] was an aberration, that it was intended to mean [y]. But that brings us into the pragmatic concerns.

    [Compare vs. same sex marriage, where opponents are saying "you guys are redefining marriage", and my response in every conversation i've gotten in on the subject for almost 20 years has been "among significant portions of the population, the definition has *already* changed, and we're just asking the state to recognize that change.]

    aphrael (402fa3)

  45. Gary – I agree with DRJ that the SCOTUS has to take this appeal. There’s a circuit split, and there’s a novel theory that would change 150 years of practice, in addition to the question of what it does to NLRB (and arguably the CFPB).

    Whether it will take it this term or next is unclear, but it’s more likely next term.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  46. Askeptic – comparing this to dred scott seems overblown.

    I’m talking about observing bad precedent, and that is the benchmark for bad.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  47. So, redefining some words and phrases is bad?

    JD (b63a52)

  48. I don’t recall Senators refusing to go to work in DC. Am I missing something?

    There seems to be one who fills that bill, some guy from Searchlight NV.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  49. With the appointments ruled unconstitutional, are the rulings the NRB made with the illegal appointments now null and void????? They Should Be!!!!

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  50. Do lawyers ever complete a game of monopoly, or does the game go into indefinite hiatus over conflicting interpretations of rules and “rules”?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  51. JD – depends on the context. To use askeptic’s comment as an example, I don’t think anyone objects to the Warren court’s decision to redefine equal protection to prohibit seperate-but-equal facilities.

    In this context, I don’t see that the definition being abandoned was an unreasonable stretch of the language or intent of the clause; I don’t see that it worked a great harm on the body politic or on individuals disadvantaged by it; I see nothing to be gained by the change except frustration of the normal operation of government.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  52. Oh great, here we go again with semiotics, intentionalism, solipsism, yada, yada.

    I feel a dump coming on.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  53. PCD – *If* the decision is upheld, then yes, I would expect the interim rulings by the NLRB would be held void if someone sued to get them overturned. It wouldn’t be automatic; someone would have to raise the issue in court.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  54. Aphrael – then we should change the Constitution.

    JD (b63a52)

  55. Gary – well, sure. When you’re arguing about what a phrase means, it’s very easy to drop down to semiotics and intentionalism. Because *how else do you argue about meaning*?

    “I know what it means because I said so” isn’t very good argument, at the end of the day. :)

    aphrael (402fa3)

  56. When was the last true emergency use of this?

    JD (b63a52)

  57. 47. You’re right, of course, this is a lot bigger than first reports appeared.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  58. The Senate of the United States is “in session” as long as it says it is, and has not notified the House that it is not.
    While “in session” (even on a “lunch break”) the President is precluded from making Recess Appointments.
    It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
    If the President has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with the Majority Leader, who has the power to make and change the schedule.
    The fact that both individuals are from the same political party says to me that they don’t work well together.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  59. JD – so what is to be gained by saying “the phrase has been misunderstood by courts and the executive and the legislature for 160 years, so we’re going to reinstate the definition that was abandoned five generations ago, and if you don’t like it, go through the process of changing the constitution?”

    That’s the part i’m not understanding.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  60. Askeptic – you’ll get no argument from me on that one. If the Senate says it’s in session, it’s in session, full stop, and there can be no recess appointments during a session. I think that’s clear, and I think the Obama administration is wrong on that issue.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  61. gary- isn’t it wonderful to work with mathematical equations and chemical notation?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  62. Aphrael – I think political pragmatism, and the way things have always been done, is a crappy way to get around the words of the Constitution.

    Since you are looking at the historical practice, why not look even further into the intent of the clause, which was for actual emergency situations when people had to transport info and people by horse and buggy.

    JD (b63a52)

  63. Askeptic – you’ll get no argument from me on that one. If the Senate says it’s in session, it’s in session, full stop, and there can be no recess appointments during a session. I think that’s clear, and I think the Obama administration is wrong on that issue.

    Then you can lay this one at the feet of Teh One. Because his arrogance is the only reason it was under consideration to begin with.

    JD (b63a52)

  64. JD, at 65: my belief that Obama did something stupid and was wrong to do so does not preclude the belief that this court also made a mistake, and that the judges who wrote the opinion are responsible for their own mistake.

    They *are* independent actors, and while Obama’s mistake was a necessary predicate to theirs, it was not in-and-of-itself sufficient.

    aphrael (402fa3)

  65. Scott Brown defended these ‘recess’ appointments, despite the fact, that they occurred during the Senate session, and they included an appointee even more enmeshed in the OWS underword then Red Squaw

    narciso (3fec35)

  66. 63. Indeed, probably why I ended in computer engineering.

    Was thinking the other night, following DRJ’s Argo note, a great mathematician, Russell, yet mediocre philosopher, was an abysmal failure with people, married 4 times.

    Marriage and a pre-schooler is stretching me.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  67. are* stretching Doh.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  68. Aphrael – to us non-lawyers, that seems like an apparent risk when dumping a matter in the Courts – you give them the Constitution and the law written on a dry erase board, and they go about calling penalties taxes, changing the definition of marriage, rights born of penumbras, or ignoring clearly stated Rights.

    JD (4fbbe6)

  69. JD, there are many things wrong in our political system today.
    Teh Won is not the cause, only the result; but that doesn’t make him any less accountable for the destruction that he rains down upon us.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  70. Dick the Butcher may have been extreme, but his disdain was well placed.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  71. In 1792, during George Washington’s administration, the first Attorney General, Edmund Randolph, responded to an inquiry as to whether a recess appointment could be made to the position of Chief Coiner of the Mint, a newly created position for which no nomination had been made before the Senate recessed. This is the closest fact pattern to the CFPB Director position among the myriad Attorney General opinions. Randolph concluded that the vacancy occurred on the day the office had been created, and thus could not be filled with a recess appointment because the vacancy existed prior to the Senate’s recess. He based his opinion on the text of the Clause and on the “spirit of the Constitution,” declaring that the Recess Appointments Clause must be “interpreted strictly” because it serves as “an exception to the general participation of the Senate.

    See s they have been trying to get around this for a long time.

    JD (4fbbe6)

  72. It is never good to question a god.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  73. Even if SCOTUS grants cert, I think zero chance that NLRB appointments are held valid. At most, some narrowing of scope of this decision.

    SPQR (edf7ec)

  74. Perhaps this can be another small step by SCOTUS in returning us to a republic?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  75. ==Bolton was appointed during an actual recess. So that is one difference.==

    And he has the playground scabs on his elbows to prove it.

    ==we don’t have “the Senate is physically incapable of getting there in a timely fashion” but we do still have “the Senate refuses to get there in a timely fashion.”==

    But does it say anything about what happens if the senate is mentally incapable of getting there? That seems like a more likely scenario.

    elissa (fa8810)

  76. aphrael,

    If the Senate is still in session when a vacancy occurs, it can choose not to adjourn until the President appoints a successor. It doesn’t have that option if it is already in recess. It may be that Senate and Presidential customs don’t distinguish the two, but that doesn’t make them the same.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  77. The WI and IN Dhimmis blowing town to interrupt business gives reason to worry about Congress, but the Exec is out of hand.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  78. Comment by elissa (fa8810) — 1/25/2013 @ 3:07 pm

    If Senators were qualified by mental capacity, the body would never attain a quorum.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  79. DRJ. every good manager has a list of replacements at hand for existing staff if the need arises, and updates it frequently.
    Of course, here we are talking about The President, enough said.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  80. Just an example how it earns the dollar it was sold for, minus the 30 million in liabilities:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/20/joe-biden-the-listener.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  81. aphrael,

    I used a poor choice of terms in my last comment. Instead of “not to adjourn,” I should have said “not to go into recess.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  82. So, as I understand it there are several interpretations:

    1. Recess appointments may only be made when a vacancy occurs between annual sessions, and only during that intersession recess. (this court)

    2. Recess appointments may only be made when a vacancy exists between annual sessions, and only during that intersession recess.

    3. Recess appointments may only be made when a vacancy occurs during an adjournment, and only during that adjournment.

    4. Recess appointments may only be made when a vacancy exists during an adjournment, and only during that or subsequent adjournments.

    5. Recess appointments may only be made when a vacancy exists when the Senate is not holding sessions for longer than 3 days (whether or not it has declared a recess), and during that or subsequent recesses. (the previous rule)

    6. Recess appointments may only be made when a vacancy exists when the Senate is not able to conduct business (whether or not it has declared a recess), and only during that or subsequent recesses. (Obama’s rule)

    7. Recess appointments may be made any time there is not a quorum on the floor of the Senate (reducio ad absurdum)

    There are probably a few finer steps as well. It would seem that there are a lot of choices for a court between 1 & 6.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  83. 85. “And the Ravens will win the Superbowl because Labor loves Ray Lewis, cause we’re all skeered to death of him.”

    I made that up. Straight from the spokeshole I play when no one’s looking.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  84. And because I know you all were waiting on Urkel for real climate change the ENSO(El Nino Southern Oscillation) has made a strong move over the last week or two into La Nina territory.

    Another summer of drought on tap.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  85. plenty of snowcap in california I think but I haven’t personally measured it

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  86. we have people for that

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  87. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/25/2013 @ 7:03 pm

    The Court said “1″, we will see what the SCOTUS says; but, I could live with “1″.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  88. Burt Reynolds is in the icu cause of he got the flu and he’s old

    it’s on the internet

    I hope he’s ok he’s a good pickle

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  89. Perhaps this can be another small step by SCOTUS in returning us to a republic?

    And, God forbid, if Barry Obama is able to appoint another Justice to the court, that guarantees the only republic the US will be switching over to is one that is proceeded by the word “banana.”

    Incidentally — and taking such things for what they’re worth (and don’t snicker since the universe, including quantum physics, etc, probably is more amazing than presumed) — a psychic with a fairly good track record a few months ago predicted that Obama wouldn’t be around for a second term. Some other soothsayers have supposedly sensed a variation of that.

    Since there’s such a decadent, extreme and surrealistic (certainly surrealistically bad) quality about Obama, a case of him and his administration ending up like an episode of “The Twilight Zone” (ie, life imitating art) would be very appropriate.

    Mark (43380c)

  90. Mr. Feets – Have your people call my people.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. While the NRB decisions will be for now stalled, ultimately John Roberts is going to oveturn this anyway. Also, Bush Jr. installed John Bolton as UN mbassador as a recess appointment. We should give the executive branch some deference to their choices, even bad ones.

    We learn again elections have cosnequences. The problem isn’t Obama’s various appointments,it’s Obama, first, foremost, always. Courdray and his bureaucracy, while an odius abomination, are The One’s doing.

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  92. Yes, Bolton was put in through a real recess appointment, not the ones they used with Gaston Pierce and Cordray, he had to do the latter because squishes like Murkowski (yes her) and Voinovich, had to have their temper tantrums

    narciso (3fec35)

  93. JD – so what is to be gained by saying “the phrase has been misunderstood by courts and the executive and the legislature for 160 years, so we’re going to reinstate the definition that was abandoned five generations ago, and if you don’t like it, go through the process of changing the constitution?”

    That’s the part i’m not understanding.

    Comment by aphrael (402fa3) — 1/25/2013 @ 12:48 pm

    It will restore the true and previously held meaning of the recess clause instead of the changed meaning by judicial fiat. I don’t understand why people who want to change the law just follow the rule of law. There is a process that can be followed, why not follow the process?

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  94. Also, Bush Jr. installed John Bolton as UN mbassador as a recess appointment. We should give the executive branch some deference to their choices, even bad ones.

    Again, the fundamental difference is the Senate was in recess when Bolton was nominated, and the Senate was not in recess when the appointments in question were made. Big effing deal.

    JD (4fbbe6)

  95. Tanny – apparently it is easier to just ignore it.

    JD (4fbbe6)

  96. As I understand it, one of the defining points was that Obama declared the Senate “out of session”, in spite of the fact that the “pro-forma” sessions are written into the Senate rules. As part of the “separation of powers”, Obama has no legal standing to unilaterally change or ignore them.

    SNuss (a67dcf)

  97. Last time I checked, the only “control” over the Congress that the President has, is to call them back to Washington for an Emergency Session, when they are not “in session”.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  98. Two judges held that the vacancy must begin duringa recess.

    It used to be that confirmations could be done very quickly, but, especially since 1969, now they investigate a person first. Criminal financial and medical background check.

    Condoleeeza Rice told BVob Schieffer that the FBI went back to her neighborhood when she was nominatyed for Secretary of state in 2005. They’d already done a check on her for 2001. A lot of this may not make too much sense.

    I think the Senate winds. they can just aboid recessing altogether.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  99. After 2006 the Senate avoided recessing

    After 2010 the Senmate and the president were of the same party but the House prevented teh Senate from adjourning.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  100. Comment by aphrael (402fa3) — 1/25/2013 @ 12:30 pm

    the Senate just refused to go back into session for an extended period, the President would be powerless to fill offices of the United States.

    he’s powerless now if tghey refuse to vote or refuse to confirm, and the filibuster makes it possible for less than a majority of the Senate to block a nomination.

    But he can keep calling them back into session. Now it might it might be hard to get a quorum if enough Senators avoided that.

    The part of the ruling saying you can’t make ‘recess’ appointments during pro forma sessions I’m fine with.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  101. Historiucally this has very little to do with horse and buggy but just simply that Cpongress was not in session a whole year.

    Presidents used to call special sessions of the Senate when they got inaugurated.

    When the coiinstitutiuons was written they didn’t realize what would happen was that the term would bein March 4 but a session not until December. Congress never changed that date for assembling until the 20th amendment did it.

    There was a situation where an election would be held in November then from, December through march 4 the lame duck Congress would meet and new representatives wouldn’t be sworn in for 13 months,. It didn’t happen all years that way.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3103 secs.