Liability
Locked Account.
If it was unconstitutional then they have an obligation to do something about it, don't you think?
Well lets see the quote from the Constitution and defines what length of time is considered a recess in the Senate!
You are incorrect. The appointments made by the President were not unconstitutional. You were correct in that the Senate will do nothing about it either.
The answer to your first question is not just "no," but OBVIOUSLY "no." They have no such "obligation." It would be the RIGHT thing to do, perhaps, but that wouldn't impose any obligation on them.
Your lack of familiarity with the CONSTITUTIONAL is (thankfully) not binding on anybody. Try Art. I "Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days".
Art. I, §5, clause 4.Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
* * * *
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
And, since the Senate was NOT in recess, YOU are wrong. The President's purported appointments were invalid.
Where does the Constitution say that the Senate adjourning for less than three days does not constitute a recess?
You can quibble all you want, but if they have not adjourned, dipshit, then they are IN SESSION.
That's it. That's the be-all and end-all. If they are in session, then they cannot be in recess. And if they are not in recess (they weren't) then there can be no honest "recess appointment."
The President's actions were invalid and the nominal appointments should be vacated.
The President should know better. So should you.