Posted on 02/23/2012 7:45:07 AM PST by Martin_Schmidt
Tuesday at AEI, four distinguished lawyers aggressively debated the constitutionality of the president’s recent "recess" appointments during the Senate's 2011-2012 pro forma sessions. First, Morton Rosenberg asserted that the president was explicitly violating the Constitution by making recess appointments when the Senate was in pro forma sessions, thereby avoiding recess by its own constitutional authority to develop its own rules. Douglas Kmiec countered that the Senate's creation of pro forma sessions simply to inhibit the executive branch violated the honest interface that the framers intended between the branches of government. David Rivkin Jr. concurred with Rosenberg's conclusion about the unconstitutionality of the appointments, also noting that the session could not have been pro forma at all, since the Congress did perform legislative tasks during the recess period, including passage of the payroll tax cut extension. Peter Wallison (AEI), who moderated the event, questioned whether the Senate could possibly protect itself from the president's appointing officials without its consent, but the debate over the recess period continued to dominate the discussion among the panel members. Panelist Walter Dellinger said that from December 17, 2011, to January 23, 2012, the Senate was in session only when it met every third day for pro forma sessions; consequently, he sided with Kmiec in advocating that the administration was not wrong in its recess appointment.
(Excerpt) Read more at aei.org ...
It is amazing how clear the constitution really is on just about everything! There is literally no need to “interpret” anything.
We have been told for decades that the President can “Recess Appoint” a nominee that had not yet been approved by the Senate. No one ever questions it. And even the “debaters” in the article seem to ignore these words completely.
“...Were the President’s Recess Appointments Constitutional?...”
The REAL questions are these: is ANYTHING this idiot does constitutional? IS he Constitutional?
Good post.
Always go back to the actual text when discussing the meaning of a law.
Ja, der Führer.
Bald flattern Hitlerfahnen über alle Straßen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.