Article 2, section 2, clause 3 of the constitution says:
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.
If the vacancy was there before the Senate goes on recess, it is illegal for the president to make the recess appointment.
2007-08-22 13:36:32 · 10 answers · asked by Herr Raging Boehner. 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because he can't beat his way out of a wet paper bag............. that's why!
2007-08-22 13:53:22 · answer #1 · answered by docie555@yahoo.com 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
June 14, 1999, at 7:48 PM ET
Earlier this month, on the final day of a congressional recess, President Clinton appointed James Hormel ambassador to Luxembourg without Senate confirmation. The move prompted Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to remark, "[Clinton] has shown contempt for Congress and the Constitution." Is Inhofe right?
Clinton's act was certainly constitutional. A recess appointment is one of the executive powers enumerated in the Constitution: "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" (II, 2, 3). The provision was originally created to fill vacancies that actually occurred during a recess, but it has since morphed into an all-purpose executive tool to counter Senate intransigence. President Kennedy, for instance, appointed Thurgood Marshall to the bench during a recess because he feared opposition from Southern senators. By the time Marshall's nomination came before the Senate, that resistance had been beaten back.
2007-08-22 13:39:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
it is not underhanded...that is underhanded to make recess appointments. each and all the Democrats are doing is being there to steer away from the manipulation of the equipment...in the event that they're there for the time of trip (and giving up time with their families), that is basically to declare "Congress is in consultation" ...don't be a TROLL a number of those solutions are in basic terms undeniable ignorant...the President, any president, does no longer have the suitable to nominate those with out Congressional approval....the subject of recess appointments became created for emergencies basically and to no longer be used as a thank you to get around the regulation...IF HE HAS TO GET APPROVAL, THEN HE ought to hire people who are not FROM THE PAT ROBERTSON college
2016-10-16 12:51:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bigger picture is obvious, as are the motives. In some circumstances, a couple of weeks of recess, has seen the eventual implementation of drastic shifts in policy either foreign or domestic, which would normally have been debated heatedly for months or even years to push whist in full senate attendance.
2007-08-22 14:20:16 · answer #4 · answered by urigeller_02 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it's allow and most presidents to it, it's called a recessive appointment. I think it was supposed to be used so that when congress is out of town, ( being that's most of the time with this group) if there is a vacancy, the president can act and not have to bring them back. In the early days of our country there was no planes or train, only horses, so there would be no way all the congress could come back in a timely manner. Now days it's used to install those who would not be confirmed in the regular process.
2007-08-22 13:45:52 · answer #5 · answered by jean 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is not against the law. Rephrase your question to something like "Does Bush relish making appointments during Congressional Recess?" Then I would say "yes" and "more power to him"!
2007-08-22 14:04:18 · answer #6 · answered by Bright Shadow 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Every president has appointed people to vacancies during congressional recess....
It is by legal precedent that he is able to do it.
Congress still has the right to revoke to appointment while in it's next session.
Learn some history.
2007-08-22 13:44:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
He's not breaking the law in doing it, of course. But, the reason he does it is obvious: to avoid partisan confirmation hearings. It's not a great solution, since the apoitment is of much briefer durration than it would have been with confirmation, of course.
2007-08-22 13:46:59 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because that is what Bush is best at, breaking the laws.
2007-08-23 05:26:41 · answer #9 · answered by Kerry R 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush broke the law!!! Bush broke the law!!! Whahhhhhh!!! You liberals really need to learn a little about the crap you spew. You make yourselves look like asses.
2007-08-22 14:00:38 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. Niceguy 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋