This is an interesting point of constitutional law. Presidents of both parties have used the power. It seems that the definition of 'recess' is a key argument. My understanding of the Framers intent is that Presidents had the power to appoint only in year-end recesses, in the same spirit as the pocket veto. The Senate Republicans' intent to thwart recess appointments through convening every three days will be considered; the Supreme Court will have their say, but I believe the intent was to have appointments by and large confirmed by the Senate.
Ok no1 - fire up that rapier-sharp legal mind of yours.
This is an interesting point of constitutional law. Presidents of both parties have used the power. It seems that the definition of 'recess' is a ke ...[text shortened]... d large confirmed by the Senate.
Ok no1 - fire up that rapier-sharp legal mind of yours.
This is an interesting point of constitutional law. Presidents of both parties have used the power. It seems that the definition of 'recess' is a ke ...[text shortened]... d large confirmed by the Senate.
Ok no1 - fire up that rapier-sharp legal mind of yours.
Recess appointments are always criticized by the party out of power. They get someone into office without the Senate's advice and consent, but the appointment isn't as permanent.
Regardless of who does it, it is most often used to sidestep a likely Senate rejection of an appointee.
This is an interesting point of constitutional law. Presidents of both parties have used the power. It seems that the definition of 'recess' is a ke ...[text shortened]... d large confirmed by the Senate.
Ok no1 - fire up that rapier-sharp legal mind of yours.
NDAA has totally made the constitution irrelevant so any talk of constitutionality is smoke.
Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
25 Jan '13 18:42
Back to Top