Obama's executive action held unconstitutional

[John Galt]

i don't know why it would be "dicey" considering they just plain were not in recess. and yes, as gregg said, the senate's powers to make it's own rules reigns supreme here.

the second part of the ruling (in regards to recess appointments having to take their positions during the recess) i don't think it's correct. as i've been saying it's about the president being able to make appointments when the congress isn't in session... with travel in the olden days the appointment may have taken some time to get to town. weeks, months, etc etc. and today even people can't just drop everything immediately. i do think that part is incorrect. but is what obama did legal? unquestionably no

[Davethulhu]

[J.K. Gregg]

[Davethulhu]

[J.K. Gregg]

[John Galt]

[Davethulhu]

[Precocity]

I suspect when all this gets ironed out, maybe even to the Supreme Court, that the technical definition of recess will mean the end of a Congressional session for clarification and temporary adjournments (holidays, etc.) are not a recess.

Until that gets straightened out, what President Obama did was not Constitutional and is playing semantics with the term that doesn't hold water.

[Professor]

This is one of those times when we have to look past the "letter" of the law, and devise intent.

Obviously, the people who wrote the law intended for the Senate to be able to approve or disapprove of nominees. No one argues that. However, they realized that to force the President to do without, say, a Secretary of the Navy for 9 months while waiting for the Senate to come back in session would be an unworkable procedure in the real world. So, they allowed him to make recess appointments.

Technically, he is right, in that they were in "recess". When a legislative body leaves the chambers, someone has to make a motion to go into recess. it gets seconded, and then voted upon. Of course, the term recess is also used to denote the time between sessions, and even whole Congresses (the 110th Congress, the 111th Congress, etc.).

So, when a technical term cannot be used to determine legality, one must look back to intent. No one disputes that the legislative intent was to give the Senate oversight of the nomination process. The President specifically violated the intent.

[Mr.Bill]

One could say the Senate violated the 'intent' of the process also..