Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 340
- 48
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional!
By: Curt
A federal appeals court has ruled that the recess appointments made by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board last January violated the Constitution. Why? Because there was no recess:
The [National Labor Relatinons] Board conceded at oral argument that the appointments at issue were not made during the intersession recess: the President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued. Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. Because the Board lacked a quorum of three members when it issued its decision in this case on February 8, 2012, its decision must be vacated.
The court basically took a much more narrow view of recess which undercuts many appointments made by Presidents. Its a huge change but well reasoned:
A third alternative interpretation of the Recess is that it means any adjournment of more than three days pursuant to the Adjournments Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, AS: 5, cl. 4 (Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days . . . .). This interpretation lacks any constitutional basis. The Framers did not use the word adjournment in the Recess Appointments Clause. Instead, they used the Recess.
In short, we hold that the Recess is limited to intersession recesses.
and:
Although our holding on the first constitutional argument of the petitioner is sufficient to compel a decision vacating the Boards order, as we suggested above, we also agree that the petitioner is correct in its understanding of the meaning of the word happen in the Recess Appointments Clause. The Clause permits only the filling up of Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 3. Our decision on this issue depends on the meaning of the constitutional language that may happen during the Recess. The company contends that happen means arise or begin or come into being. The Board, on the other hand, contends that the President may fill up any vacancies that happen to exist during the Recess. It is our firm conviction that the appointments did not occur during the Recess. We proceed now to determine whether the appointments are also invalid as the vacancies did not happen during the Recess.
Our understanding of the plain meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause as requiring that a qualifying vacancy must have come to pass or arisen during the Recess is consistent with the apparent meaning of the Senate Vacancies Clause. The interpretation proffered by the Board is not.
In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of happen was arise, we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess.
Our understanding of the plain meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause as requiring that a qualifying vacancy must have come to pass or arisen during the Recess is consistent with the apparent meaning of the Senate Vacancies Clause. The interpretation proffered by the Board is not.
In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of happen was arise, we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess.
And now it will go to the Supreme Court:
[Excerpt]
Read more:
Court Rules Obama ?Recess? Appointments Unconstitutional! | Flopping Aces
Last edited:
