Obama's Recess Appointments: An Impeachable Offense?

reply to post by SG-17


link please. I looked but don't have time to search millions of links.
Thanks SG

In the bigger scope of things...we are supposed to have a representitive government.

It is not as if the GOP were opposed to his nominee, they admit that a majority of Republicans supported the Nominee....which is why they refused to put the nomination to a vote, along with a literal pledge to deny President Obama ANY appointees he is obligated to make.

Don't we elect our representitives to actually represent us? I mean if a bill or nominee is voted down, then at least the democratic process is operating and whether the conservatives or the Liberals like or dislike the bill or nominee..tough...your representitive made your districts voice heard win or lose.

But this nonsense ...proud obstructionism...by either the left or the right...short circuits the whole process.

Seeing as the Senate refused to even vote on ANY of the Presidents Nominees and if those departments he must staff fail ..those same obstructionists will blame him...I am glad he made the appointments.

Next lets refine the congressional rules to disallow a single congressman or senator from preventing the people's will (a vote) by fillibuster!

Win or lose...liberal or republican...lets have a congress that actually is able to VOTE on things. At least then we can call it democracy and our "representives" at least have a chance to "represent us" on the issues.

Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by Quadrivium


I doubt that a recess appointment is an impeachable offense. Testing the process and procedure of how senators can conceivable circumvent the US Constitution is exactly the type of work the President is supposed to do, in procedure and the beauty of the system is where the US Supreme Court can confirm or deny the Constitutionality of the process or policy.

It needs to be tested, in a court, so government can work, not theorize. Banging a gavel with no one present and walking-out 30 seconds later is no "session," whether anyone wants to believe it or not. If it is it could explain how our government has been working the last ten years. But still, this needs to be tested to see either way.

Filibustering an appointment while in-session, to block an appointment, then object when recourse is gained, is poor-sportsmanship, if not bad taste. If they want to play the game, then the senate should accept responsibility for actions-taken, but that's the way the ball bounces with politics. And that's the worst thing I dislike about politics. No one seems to want-to take the "high-road," these days.

On a side-note, Fox News just mentioned the judge in Georgia about President Obama's eligibility. So I assume that is another drama that's going to play-out this year. Yeah! Out of the frying pan into the fire which we all burn.

Somebody let me off this train, it keeps-on going in circles and gets nowhere!

the Senate cannot constitutionally thwart the president's recess appointment power through pro forma sessions.

Historically, the recess appointments clause has been given a practical interpretation. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 67, the clause enables the president to keep the government fully staffed when the Senate is not "in session for the appointment of officers."

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...

reply to post by Indigo5


Star for you links, I could not agree more!
Yet I do not agree with this appointment as I feel it was to an unconstitutional committee.
Best stated here:

In any event, the president's reliance upon unconstitutional means to “appoint” Cordray was ironically appropriate, because Cordray will in turn carry out unconstitutional duties.

www.weeklystandard.com...

Obama used too much toilet paper the other day too!

I read on World net Daily that he rips tags off mattresses and kicked a dog once too!
What will it take to get this tyrant out of office?

reply to post by Indigo5


I agree on all points except the filibuster. Reform the rules so that the senator performing the filibuster has to actually stay on the senate floor rather than have an aide tell the senate president, "Senator so and so is in his office and is filibustering the legislation until X, Y, or Z happens."

Bernie Sanders got it right, he stood on the floor of the senate for eight hours to filibuster a bill, speaking the entire time.

There are some who say this is impeachable. They don't know what impeach means. Same folks that whine about free speech when some one doesn't agree with them.

I say he did the responsible thing. The democrats showed up ready to do business, the republicans refused to do business because there were not any republicans in town to do business. They even went to the extent of pulling the c-span feed so people couldn't see the democrats in the room. Showmanship? You bet - but when you are dealing with stubborn children, you have to do something to get their attention.

You go President Obama !!!!!!!!!!

This is all for show.It works up the bases of both parties and allows the dupes from both sides to make pointless arguments endlessly.Ever stop to think this is exactly what they want? It makes things like the passing of the patriot act and indefinite dentition bill easy to pass.

Yes but appointments were made to put people in place to do things that actually work for people. I'm a people and I am good with that.

So actually it wasn't show it was doing the nations business - something the right wing has decided is not important. The making the right wing look foolish - that was just fun.

reply to post by Quadrivium


I really hope republicans take up this fight, I really do. I would very much like exposed what is going on with what has become "in session" since we pay these people when they are "in session." Unfortunately Obama gets my support all the way and I look forward to the Republican argument for what the Republicans are trying to do. They want to take our money to sit around and do nothing but gavel in and gavel out 5 seconds later and call that a fight for less waste and smaller government I want to hear it.

Then there is the simple fact that Bush's recess appointments all made me sick and I would just be happy to see something bring and end to them altogether.

I tried pro-forma breathing this morning. I almost passed out from lack of oxygen.

The recess appointment provision in the US Constitution (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3) was intended to assure the government's continued ability to function even when the Senate was unavailable (see Federal essay 67).

In this instance, the Senate went into recess in every way except by name. The Republicans deliberately tried to cheat the President of his Constitutional power to make appointments by refusing to call their recess a recess. Instead they arranged for "pro forma sittings" - something nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist - in which the only Senator present (perhaps the only Senator still in the City of Washington) is the one playing presiding officer, who opens and closes the sitting in less time than it takes to boil an egg, with no votes taken and no quorum. In the meantime, the Senate Republicans have tried to cripple the government by refusing to vote on numerous judicial and executive appointments.

Can the Republicans prevent the President from exercising his authority by simply avoiding using the word recess?

In a case where there are two legal interpretations possible, the one that enables government to function is going to be preferred over the one that paralyzes the government.

Originally posted by Shoonra
The recess appointment provision in the US Constitution (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3) was intended to assure the government's continued ability to function even when the Senate was unavailable (see Federal essay 67).

Among others -- Madison expounded on this and the reasoning behind the section and clause.

In this instance, the Senate went into recess in every way except by name. The Republicans deliberately tried to cheat the President of his Constitutional power to make appointments by refusing to call their recess a recess. Instead they arranged for "pro forma sittings" - something nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist

Here you are starting to get a bit murky. The "pro-forma" sessions were instituted by Senator Reid during the Bush Administration to specifically disable any attempts by then President Bush to appoint during recess.

As far as the House, yes -- they were/are playing politics but nothing unconstitutional. They simply are remaining in session by ignoring the Joint Resolution that is required via the Constitution (in which both the Senate and House must agree on the recess).

In regards to the "pro-forma" sessions, they are not unconstitutional because the Constitution gives latitude towards each the Senate and the House to make their own rules.

In the meantime, the Senate Republicans have tried to cripple the government by refusing to vote on numerous judicial and executive appointments.

Lets get specific to who the recess appointments were: 2 of the 3 NLRB nominees were scheduled for their hearing -- yet the President felt they needed to be recessed in. Mr. Cordory's nomination was rejected on political grounds (as are nearly all other rejected nominations) in attempts to make adjustments to specific legislation. Senate Republicans all agree he is the man for the job, just want some changes before he is confirmed. Its politics -- dirty as it may be, nothing unconstitutional about it.

Can the Republicans prevent the President from exercising his authority by simply avoiding using the word recess?

January 3rd is, via the 20th Amendment, the only day required for Congress to be in-session.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Now we should wonder why they held just a pro-forma session in place of their constitutionally mandated duty to assemble.