Obama's Recess Appointments: An Impeachable Offense?

Looks like Pres. Obama might be in for a bumpy 2012.

"The president shall have power," Article II, section 2 states, "to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

The Senate has not been in recess. And Congress' authority over when it is and isn't in recess is no small matter of parliamentary procedure. Rather, it is a power the Framers explicitly bestowed in Article I, Section 5:

"Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

Yet Obama on Wednesday, with no recess in effect and against the publicly stated position of his own Justice Department, made four "recess appointments."

news.investors.com...

So here we go ATS
Once again this Pres. has shown that the Constitution means NOTHING. I am not even sure at this point how many times he has thrown the "checks and balances" out the window and just did what he wanted almost as if he is saying "to hell with the constitution".
He is a President, NOT A KING.

I guess it still comes down to the questions:
Was congress at recess or not?
Is this an impeachable offense?

What say you?

reply to post by Quadrivium


No. Congress was in a pro forma session and there were not enough members there for a Quorum.

The President was completely within his Constitutional rights to make recess appointments.

In a 1905 report that the Senate still considers authoritative, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a "Recess of the Senate" occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its functions and when it cannot "participate as a body in making appointments." The committee cautioned that a "recess" means "something actual, not something fictitious." The executive branch has long taken the same common-sense view. In 1921, citing opinions of his predecessors dating back to the Monroe administration, Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty argued that the question "is whether in a practical sense the Senate is in session so that its advice and consent can be obtained. To give the word 'recess' a technical and not a practical construction, is to disregard substance for form." The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted, and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president's nominations. That means the Senate remains in "recess" for purposes of the recess appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.

www.washingtonpost.com...

George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments.
President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments.
President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments (so far).

Every president since George Washington has made recess appointments.

Obama's recess appointments is below average compared to his predecessors.

It's hilarious watching the right-wing scream "impeachment" over this when Obama has made fewer recess appointments than Bush Jr.

reply to post by SG-17

What about the small fact that presidents have to wait for Congress to be out of session three days before legally making a recess appointment.

reply to post by Quadrivium


No, they don't.

But there is precedent for appointments made during recesses of fewer than three days — President Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during a Senate break of less than a day in 1903.

www.latimes.com...

There is precedence for this, as most, if not all Presidents, have done this.

Impeachable? Not even remotely.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments.
President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments.
President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments (so far).

Every president since George Washington has made recess appointments.

Obama's recess appointments is below average compared to his predecessors.

It's hilarious watching the right-wing scream "impeachment" over this when Obama has made fewer recess appointments than Bush Jr.

Recess appointments are not in question here. I do not agree with them no matter who the President is, but as I said that is not the question.

The questions were:
Were these appointments legal and is in an impeachable offense?

Care to give your opinions on the questions?

reply to post by Quadrivium


Congress isn't there though. Every three days some random member will walk in, strike the gavel and say "We'll reconvene in three days." How could anyone call that 'in-session'? Don't believe me? Here it is:



From 10 AM Friday, January 6th, 2012 until 2 PM Tuesday, January 10, 2012. There's no one there.

I can't wait to see where this goes.

You know whats really funny?

Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments. More than any other president?


ETA:

Congress in Recess? Constitution doesn't specify.
I wonder of people ever check facts before they write these kind of articles.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Those were Recess Appointments made DURING a recess.

Difference:

Congress was NOT on recess now. The key term here: RECESS.

So, your argument, or "well, booosh did it toooooo" isn't valid for this discussion and only confuses the situation for talking points.

Originally posted by SourGrapes
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Those were Recess Appointments made DURING a recess.

Difference:

Congress was NOT on recess now. The key term here: RECESS.

So, your argument, or "well, booosh did it toooooo" isn't valid for this discussion and only confuses the situation for talking points.

edit on 6-1-2012 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)

I explained in my above post, that Congress, was in fact, in recess.

No. Congress was in a pro forma session and there were not enough members there for a Quorum.

The President was completely within his Constitutional rights to make recess appointments.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The "well the guy before him did more crimes or this or that than this one" argument is really tired and wants to go snuggle his wife apathy. While they are indisposed maybe we can hold the crooks accountable?

reply to post by SG-17


Is congress OFFICIALLY at recess or is the argument 'well, it SHOULD be a recess because many are gone'? If it's the latter, then we could argue that an 11pm recess appointment is valid because "well, most of congress isn't there"

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

No, they don't.

But there is precedent for appointments made during recesses of fewer than three days — President Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during a Senate break of less than a day in 1903.

www.latimes.com...

Precedent does not make it right or legal.
This is from your link, The paragraph above the one you quoted..

While the Constitution gives the president the authority to fill executive branch vacancies when the Senate is in recess, a Justice Department opinion in 1993 implied that a recess of more than three days was needed before the president could exercise the power, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. No such appointments have been made during recesses of fewer than 10 days over the last 20 years, the service said in a December report.

Just because Roosevelt did it in 1903, does not make it legal.

reply to post by Quadrivium


It is, so far as my knowledge takes me, completely within the scope of his powers as granted by the constitution.

As there were not enough Senate members in Washington to constitute a quorum he is within his rights. Though it is perhaps a bit grayer than might ordinarily be the case...

Originally posted by SourGrapes
reply to post by SG-17

 

Is congress OFFICIALLY at recess or is the argument 'well, it SHOULD be a recess because many are gone'? If it's the latter, then we could argue that an 11pm recess appointment is valid because "well, most of congress isn't there"

A Congressional Recess has been defined by the Supreme Court as any period where Congress cannot perform their duties. Such as during a pro forma session.



reply to post by Quadrivium


See the video posted by links234. Congress has not been in session as defined by the Supreme Court for more than 3 days.

reply to post by links234

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

No. Congress was in a pro forma session and there were not enough members there for a Quorum.

The President was completely within his Constitutional rights to make recess appointments.

Correct. The most recent public example of this was when the Wisconsin state Senators fled to Illinois. even though the GOP Senators were there...there was not enough members to qualify for a Quorum and thus they could not declare officially they were in full session and vote on the bill.

If the GOP Senators in Wisconsin...with half the house there...could not declare Quorum, i have no idea how a single GOP Senator walking in and gaveling in and out in less than 10 seconds once every three days could by any legal interpretation qualify as "in Session".

reply to post by links234


Oh, I believe you Links, it is politics.
Your video shows that some in congress was trying to block Obama's appointments.
In session? no
In recess? no
And that is where this gets sticky, If they were not officially in recess how can he make the appointments?

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by links234

 

Oh, I believe you Links, it is politics.
Your video shows that some in congress was trying to block Obama's appointments.
In session? no
In recess? no
And that is where this gets sticky, If they were not officially in recess how can he make the appointments?

edit on 6-1-2012 by Quadrivium because: added "some in"

Because the Supreme Court defined Recess as whenever Congress cannot perform their duties. There is nothing sticky here. It is plain as day.