Bloomberg News: President’s Recess-Appointment Power Cut by High Court

[Zguy28]

This wasn't as unaninimous as it seems on the surface.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/court-to-obama-recess-is-over

 

Lots of varying opinions at Bloomberg also.

[Larry]

That's actually an interesting read. And a lot more complicated that I would have simplistically suggested.

Seems like the only thing they were unanimous about, was that those particular appointments by Obama went too far.

[Duckus]

I think what was unprecedented was Congress suddenly pretending to be in session when it isn't, so that the President couldn't make recess appointments in the exact same manner as every single President since George Washington. 

 

Gotcha.

 

So essentially for a President to have any recess appointment is in the future they must control both houses, as both must vote to begin recess. So in our current political climate - never again.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Gotcha.

 

So essentially for a President to have any recess appointment is in the future they must control both houses, as both must vote to begin recess. So in our current political climate - never again.

 

I don't know about never again but I do know that I hope we don't see this again.  I think it's wrong for either party to do this. 

[Slateman]

I like this. The Office of the President should have as little power as possible

[Larry]

Gotcha.

So essentially for a President to have any recess appointment is in the future they must control both houses, as both must vote to begin recess. So in our current political climate - never again.

I wasn't aware of a rule saying that (say) the House has to vote, to allow the Senate to recess.

Frankly, I have trouble imagining the Senate giving the House that power.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't know about never again but I do know that I hope we don't see this again.  I think it's wrong for either party to do this. 

 

What is "this?"

[ABQCOWBOY]

What is "this?"

 

Use backdoor methods to get appointees in place.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Use backdoor methods to get appointees in place.

 

Oh, I thought you meant refusing to give hearings to appointees and keeping the Senate open all the time to prevent recess appointments.

 

I guess those things are okay.

[The Evil Genius]

Use backdoor methods to get appointees in place.

 

Again. There was nothing backdoor about it. The Senate minority party refused to allow the Senate to come to a vote on the nominations. This was, apparently, before the nuclear option was approved for voting for nominations. So I believe it only took 41 people to refuse a vote.

 

The Senate recessed and Obama filled the spots via temporary appointments.

 

Except, now the SC has ruled that the Senate can never really be ruled as having recessed if they hold these little meetings every few days.

 

Personally, I find that troubling.

[Larry]

Use backdoor methods to get appointees in place.

Oh.

And here I assumed that you were objecting to the act of (in effect) filibustering the motion to adjourn, so that you can prevent the President from making any appointments at all, for years on end.

You know, the act that was actually unprecedented.

Recess appointments have been going on since George Washington. Pretending to be in session so that you can prevent any recess appointments at all began when Obama took office.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh.

And here I assumed that you were objecting to the act of (in effect) filibustering the motion to adjourn, so that you can prevent the President from making any appointments at all, for years on end.

You know, the act that was actually unprecedented.

Recess appointments have been going on since George Washington. Pretending to be in session so that you can prevent any recess appointments at all began when Obama took office.

 

 

No, the act of appointing people who are not comfirmed, by vote, from Congress.  I don't care how long it's been going on.  I don't agree with it.  If you do, that's fine.   I do not.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

No, the act of appointing people who are not comfirmed, by vote, from Congress.  I don't care how long it's been going on.  I don't agree with it.  If you do, that's fine.   I do not.

 

You are really against recess appointments?

 

That's quite a bold stand. Did you write an angry paper in Politics 101 about Federalist 67?

 

Do you hate John Rutledge?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are really against recess appointments?

 

That's quite a bold stand. Did you write an angry paper in Politics 101 about Federalist 67?

 

Do you hate John Rutledge?

 

 

Yes I am against it.  To easy to abuse, clearly.

 

The rest of this is drivel.   I will give it the due it deserves and move on.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

The rest of this is drivel.   I will give it the due it deserves and move on.

 

John Rutledge is drivel?

 

Then it is pistols at dawn, sir.

[ABQCOWBOY]

John Rutledge is drivel?

 

Then it is pistols at dawn, sir.

 

If I'm not mistaken, that would be a Pro NRA stance......

[Duckus]

I wasn't aware of a rule saying that (say) the House has to vote, to allow the Senate to recess.

Frankly, I have trouble imagining the Senate giving the House that power.

I have seen it in a few articles today.

"The Constitution requires that the Senate and House get the other's consent for any break longer than three days."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-limits-presidents-appointments-power-24314810

[twa]

You are really against recess appointments?

 

 

 

you are against senate consent?

[Larry]

No, the act of appointing people who are not comfirmed, by vote, from Congress.

Which has been going on since George Washington.

They're called "recess appointments", and the Constitution specifically says he can do it.

Now, you may think that part of the Constitution isn't needed, any more. (I might even agree with you.)

But, what's that line, every time somebody points out that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense of the nation? Something along the line that there is a procedure for amending the constitution?

[Larry]

I have seen it in a few articles today.

"The Constitution requires that the Senate and House get the other's consent for any break longer than three days."

Wow.

I was about to pompously announce that the Conbstitution nowhere even mentions anything involving a specific time period, being three days or any other.

But I decided (wisely, as it turns out), to go read the darned thing, before posting.

 

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.

 

 

IMO, it's still despicable (pretending to be open, strictly for the purpose of blocking a constitutionally-granted power).  But I thought it was the Senate Republicans doing it, not the ones in the House. 

[Zguy28]

Wow.

I was about to pompously announce that the Conbstitution nowhere even mentions anything involving a specific time period, being three days or any other.

But I decided (wisely, as it turns out), to go read the darned thing, before posting.

 

 

IMO, it's still despicable (pretending to be open, strictly for the purpose of blocking a constitutionally-granted power).  But I thought it was the Senate Republicans doing it, not the ones in the House. 

I think either one is from wrong motive, even if both are right on technicality.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but recess appointments were designed to be a practical thing, to be used when needed, not planned for and to be taken advantage of. Whether its happened since George Washington or not (I was little surprised by some members on here trumpeting that as sound reasoning) doesn't make it right to abuse the power for political gains.

[Larry]

I think either one is from wrong motive, even if both are right on technicality.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but recess appointments were designed to be a practical thing, to be used when needed, not planned for and to be taken advantage of. Whether its happened since George Washington or not (I was little surprised by some members on here trumpeting that as sound reasoning) doesn't make it right to abuse the power for political gains.

 

I agree with you that it could be argued that the recess appointment power is one that really doesn't need to be there, any more. 

 

Yeah, I assume that, when it was written, the idea was "OMG!, the SecDEF just died, and Congress won't be back for seven months!" 

 

I don't think the Framers envisioned a situation where Congress' longest break would be a month or two.  Nor one where Congress would be confirming the deputy undersecretary for the Bureau of Indian Affiars, Florida-Georgia region. 

 

If we were to just get rid of the power, it wouldn't exactly be a national catastrophe. 

[Slateman]

I agree with you that it could be argued that the recess appointment power is one that really doesn't need to be there, any more. 

 

Yeah, I assume that, when it was written, the idea was "OMG!, the SecDEF just died, and Congress won't be back for seven months!" 

 

I don't think the Framers envisioned a situation where Congress' longest break would be a month or two.  Nor one where Congress would be confirming the deputy undersecretary for the Bureau of Indian Affiars, Florida-Georgia region. 

 

If we were to just get rid of the power, it wouldn't exactly be a national catastrophe. 

You could make the argument that in the modern telecommunications age, it's not necessary at all. There's no reason that a representative can't indicate his/her vote via phone/email/VTC

[AsburySkinsFan]

I always find celebrations like this by one side or the other a bit funny, because they forget that they aren't always going to be in control on the Hill.

[daveakl]

You could make the argument that in the modern telecommunications age, it's not necessary at all. There's no reason that a representative can't indicate his/her vote via phone/email/VTC

Didn't these start because it took people days to get to Washington from places like Maine and Georgia?