Presently the republicans in congress are voluntarily dysfunctional.
The problem is not the rules themselves, it is how the rules have been abused. How can you have a functional government when many important positions have not been filled because the candidates for these positions are not even given a hearing or a up or down vote?
3 years?!?!?!? You know how much damage these politicians can do in 3 years????
As to the issue at hand concerning the President's recess appointments, I think folks should also read this segment from the OP article:
Simply put: If prior federal appeals courts have upheld these same types of pro forma recess appointment by sitting Presidents in the past, there's no way the SCOUS will uphold the lower court's ruling because the precidence for such Presidential appoints has long been established.
Although I did find other articles and/or white papers that addressed the parameters of Presidential recess appointments conducted in the past, I thought this article summarized the issue much clearer, "President's Power to Recess Appoint". What's in question is simply this: "Do pro forma recesses constitute an break from Congress conducting their normal day-to-day business or is it merely a mechanism used by the minority party in Congress to block Presidential recess appointments much as the filibuster is used to block passage of Senate legislation?"
In short, if all you're doing is taking attendance, reading some letter from grandma before the Senate President Pro Tempe or just gavelling in to chew the fat then gavel out to leave after a 5 minute water cooler chat, do such brief interactions by members of Congress constitute Congress as being in full recess per the Constitution, which reads:
Art. II, Sect. 2:
Notice that there's nothing in this section of the Constitution that sets a limit on how long Congress must be in recess before the President can make his recess appointment. However, here's what Art. I, Sect. 5 says on the matter of Congressional recesses and adjournments:
Clause 1:
Clause 4:
Doesn't say that the Congress must be adjourned (or in recess) for no less than 3-days before a recess appointment can be made; just that no House of Congress - House of Reps or the Senate - can adjourn for more than 3 days without the consent of the other.
In my view, the President's recess appointments are Constitutional. Once the Senate "gavels out", they're no longer in session and, therefore, ARE in recess even if only for a minute.
We do now.
Ha! Indeed. Now just imagine if these buffoons were competent...
Define competence.
Define competence.
Heh, well it is a subjective determination...
I would say it could be measured by comparing the end results to the stated intent.
Ok, and so by that measure, can you tell me if you think the end results of Rep's v Demo's has been a success so far, concerning these appointments?
Well, are we talking competence or are we talking success?
Further, what was the parameters to which we are suppose to determine competence or success?
What was the stated goal? To appoint? Well than yes.
Was the stated goal to appoint following the rules and guidelines of the Constitution? Not sure, but apparently No.
Of course, I could be taking your meaning completely wrong and you're not asking my opinion on either of these two scenerios but on something completely different.
Seeing as you've asked me these questions regarding posts of mine which were in the context of light-hearted banter, I'm not sure what you're looking for?
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
It's going to be interesting to see how this story plays out, as the Constitution does specifically allow for recess appointments.
But only during recess. The court ruled that only the Senate, and not the president, can decide when it is in recess.
Maybe it's time he starts thinking about the country and not just his team.
But only during recess. The court ruled that only the Senate, and not the president, can decide when it is in recess.
Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.
This is the first test.
When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.
What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.
Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.
This is the first test.
When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.
What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.
Another indication that the judiciary has overstepped its constitutional power in a separate but equal construct.
A duly elected President has to have his decisions confirmed by the Senate.... by design.
Well, it will be interesting to see if the higher courts recognize the pro forma stunt as legitimate. When Reid tried it on Bush, Bush didn't make any appointments.
This is the first test.
When the President is prevented from filling deputy and supporting positions in the executive branch because of overzealous opposition party obstructionism, then the voters are being cheated.
What we need is to do is set reasonable time limits for congress to act on appointments. A duly elected President should not have to play these games with congress on every single appointment.
Pretty sure John Kerry was easily confirmed in little to no time.
Controversial appointees, necessarily bog down the system, to the benefit of voters.
bogs benefit no one IMO
No. Not really.
The Senate has a limited 'advise and consent' power over appointments, but the bulk of the executive branch, secretaries, advisers, lawyers, policy writers, are hired like any other public sector job.
But when positions haven't been filled, traditionally the President uses recess appointments to fill mid-level and noncontroversial positions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?