- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
Anyone still think the Liberal Press is credible and independent?
Nakamura and Sonmez waited until the 10th paragraph in their 33-paragraph page A1 story to get to the Republican side of the argument, that "precedent, over the past two decades, has been that no president can make such an appointment during a recess of less than 10 days."
Nakamura and Sonmez omitted, however, that the actual minimal threshold of inactivity to constitute a Senate "recess" has been considered, since the days of the Clinton Department of Justice, a length of at least three days.
From "frequently asked questions" brief published on December 12, 2011 by Henry Hogue of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (emphases mine):
The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days. In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This Adjournments Clause provides that Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days .... Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated:
If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senates ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. ... It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant.
Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.
The logic of the argument laid out in this brief appears to underlie congressional practices, intended to block recess appointments, that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.
In other words, President Obama is pushing the limits of his executive recess appointment-making authority even further than the Clinton administration dreamed possible.
Read more: WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' in Making Recess Appointment While Senate's Still In Session | NewsBusters.org
Nakamura and Sonmez waited until the 10th paragraph in their 33-paragraph page A1 story to get to the Republican side of the argument, that "precedent, over the past two decades, has been that no president can make such an appointment during a recess of less than 10 days."
Nakamura and Sonmez omitted, however, that the actual minimal threshold of inactivity to constitute a Senate "recess" has been considered, since the days of the Clinton Department of Justice, a length of at least three days.
From "frequently asked questions" brief published on December 12, 2011 by Henry Hogue of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (emphases mine):
The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days. In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This Adjournments Clause provides that Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days .... Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated:
If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senates ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. ... It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant.
Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.
The logic of the argument laid out in this brief appears to underlie congressional practices, intended to block recess appointments, that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.
In other words, President Obama is pushing the limits of his executive recess appointment-making authority even further than the Clinton administration dreamed possible.
Read more: WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' in Making Recess Appointment While Senate's Still In Session | NewsBusters.org
