Congress might take breaks during the year, but it does not recess until the end of the Congressional session...EVER. Then when it reconvenes, we call it a new Congress and give it the next number in the Congressional sequence.
From time to time Congress takes holiday breaks and other breaks for its members to go back to their districts and do some politicking or to be with their families or whatever, but they do NOT take a recess to do it.
The Constitution makes it clear with the phrase: the Recess. It is the time following the end of a Congressional session.
See, words matter and so does grammar. That's why we should all learn it, whether we want to or not.
"The" is a definite article. That means it refers to something specifically and not to something generally, as in the case with "a."
If you say to me, "Give me a key to a car," I might fulfill your command by handing you just any old key. On the other hand, if you say to me, "Give me the key to the car," you have now gotten specific and any other key I hand you might raise your ire.
So, "the recess" is different from "a recess." It refers to the specific recess that occurs at the end of a Congressional session.
That's what the US District Court (not just "a" court, the court) affirmed unanimously with its decision concerning President BO (the amateur president 's appointments to the NLRB (not just any labor board...that specific labor board.)
The Constitution: Article II, Section 2: ...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.
A sitting president has every right, under the Constitution, to appoint people to certain positions when Congress is in RECESS. To make appointments when Congress is in session is not Constitutional. That would constitution a failure to uphold the Constitution, something PBO (tap) swore he would do.
Because it was still in session, and therefore must have been consulted with regard to those appointments, Obama circumvented Congress and the Constitution to get his way.
His attitude is, as he has stated, "if Congress won't do it, I'll do it without them."
We're a Constitutional, Representative Republic, and a president is not allowed to do such a thing.
Now, do you think he knew that?
If so, why did he go ahead and do it?
If not, why did he not know? Isn't he supposed to have been some sort of Constitutional Scholar?
Some scholar.
If you need more clarification, here is a link to a video by a man who really IS a Constitutional scholar and who has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court and won. (Whether you like him or not, you HAVE to admit that he knows more about the Constitution than you do...or I, for that matter.)
9 comments:
Joe - This is offtopic - but I love your new profile picture.
Just wanted to mention that. : )
Joe, joe, joe, we've been through this already.
What constitutes "in session"? Does the building being open but the Senate unable to conduct any business whatsoever constitute "being open" or does it constitute contravention of legitimate executive authority?
The courts must decide and this will end up with SCOTUS.
It's a matter of interpretation just who is circumventing here. You have no more standing on the issue than I.
Ducky: Two points.
1) The Constitution says "the" and that is what the court ruled.
2)We are presently in the 113th session of Congress and will be in it until the session ends.
Neither of us needs standing on the issue. It is what it is and always has been (until BO declared it in recess).
It all depends on what the meaning of "the" and "a" is?
Oy vey!
SK: Like "is," they have specific, defined meanings. There's no depending. They mean what they mean.
The Constitution: Article II, Section 2: ...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.
---
In no way does that limit the number of recesses. You could be in the second recess of the year and still be in "the recess", albeit the second.
Pitch till you win Joe. As I said in your previous thread on this issue the ruling overturns several circuit court decisions and will likely end up being heard by the Supreme Court.
Ducky - Jo Joe is arguing that by using the word "the", there can only be one recess between Congressional Sessions which is ridiculous.
That flies in the face of almost 200 years of settled law. There is no way the SCOTUS upholds this silly decision.
If President Obama's recess appointments are ruled unconstitutional, the court would have to reexamine every single recess appointment made by every President since 1820 and every decision made by each recess appointment made in the last 193 years with the possibility of invalidating thousands of rulings and legal precedents.
It would be legal chaos.
That won't happen. Obama's appointments will stand and the SCOTUS will shoot down the "pro forma" congressional session (which, in all due diligence, was an invention by Harry Reid) as being ridiculously unconstitutional.
XO: As usual, liberals either change or ignore the meaning of words to fit their agenda.
Typical.
Until now, there have only been 3 appointments made during Congressional sessions in the entire history of the U.S. The rest were made when Congress was not in session.
Those three, plus this one, are probably unconstitutional.
We shall see.
Liberals will defend ANYTHING a liberal president does, just as Germans defended Hitler, Russians defended Stalin, Chinese defended (and still defend) Mao. The leftist mind is unable to differentiate evil from good.
Post a Comment