A challenge to President Barack Obama’s recess appointments of three members to his National Labor Relations Board proved successful. According to CNN, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled Friday that the president violated the Constitution when he made the appointments.
"Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," the judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said. "An interpretation of 'the recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."
This president, however, is not the first to use this practice. President George W. Bush is reported to have used it more often during his terms than Obama has. At that time, however, then-Sen. Obama said it was the wrong thing to do. It has been used by other presidents as well, especially when it is believed that the opposition party is "gravelling in and gravelling out" to give the appearance of being in session to avoid allowing for such appointments.
According to CNN, the White House says Friday's ruling is "novel and unprecedented."
"It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations,” Jay Carney, White House press secretary reportedly said. “So we respectfully, but strongly disagree with the rulings. There have been — according to the Congressional Research Service — something like 280 plus intra-session recess appointments by, Democratic and Republican administration dating back to 1867. That’s a long time and quite a significant precedent.”
What do you think? Is this type of recess appointment unconstitutional? And if so, should they have been ruled that way in the past too?
The response you have received is based on fact; the senate was in session - NOT recessed. The fact is that TWO types of actions are being discussed here and all other presidents followed the proper, legal path. The commentator’s political persuasion doesn’t change a thing and is thus immaterial. What makes this so interesting is the fact the SENATE majority leader at the time was of the same political party as the president and yet he couldn’t find a way to properly end the session? The really sad part is that a private entity that was wronged had to bring a legal action and bare the burden of all the legal cost itself. WHERE were the challenges of our other branches of government or is it simply falling to all of us to FORCE compliance from our leaders now?
Because I am INSUBORDINATE!
This case isn't over. It will be appealed. I think Patch meant to say, "gaveling in and gaveling out", or more descriptively, "groveling"? The Senate needs to clean up its procedures and do the work for the American people. Trickery is bad for all. No, David, you're not.
DAVID--I CAN'T HEAR YOU. WHAT ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOUT?
The very rules established in the 1970s by gasp ... DEMOCRATS! It’s really pretty bad when you can’t play by the very rules you created. Just pass some more, so we can all find out whats in it. Remember it takes a village.
Concept of coconuts. Some like their coconuts and a portion yours too. If they decide to get generous, they'll use yours. That's the democratic way. ;)
That being said, I will say I'm confused about the 'not in session' part. They were out of town, closed up for the holidays, ergo - not available. What part of that makes them in session?
In this case Senator Harry Reid's "rules of engagement" did just that... Sorry - edit to add ALL CAPS just for my "fans" ... Carry on.
Gimmicks always bite each side sooner or later. But neither side wants to give 'em up because of the potential future advantage. Off topic, but I'm a little mad at him because he compromised with McConnell for a weak agreement on filibuster reform.
NO thought required or applied. Just like the weather woman in those Jimmy Dean commercials …
Just members of the entire world, so say we all.
*(Just not at any USA border)
However, that's how the Senate operates and that fact shouldn't escape such a so "nearly new" former senate member - or it that an unreasonable expectation as well?