|
tazzygirl -> RE: RE:Bigotty bonkers birthers are baaa-aack. (1/8/2012 12:06:35 PM)
|
thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1122.html (the part that wont show is loc followed by a period, then gov)
According to this, the Senate was not in session.
“This is not a nice, clear-cut area at all,” said Robert Dove, a former Senate parliamentarian, when asked about the implications of the president’s move.
Recess appointments are typically controversial since presidents are circumventing the Senate by naming someone to a spot until the end of a year’s session. By this point in President George W. Bush’s second term, he had made 61 recess appointments, compared to 28 for Obama.
But Wednesday’s move took on a special significance because the Senate technically had not gone into recess. Instead, the Senate has been holding a series of pro forma sessions every few days in order to technically avoid recessing. The sessions are only a few seconds long, where one presiding senator — usually from nearby states such as Virginia, Maryland and Delaware — gavels the Senate in and out and goes home for the day.
When Republicans took control of the House, going into pro forma sessions became the norm since neither chamber can recess for longer than three days without the consent of the other.
But now that Obama has decided that pro forma sessions don’t matter much, Republicans warn there is no stopping presidents from undermining the Senate’s traditional advise-and-consent role.
The Obama White House said the pro forma sessions amount to a distinction without a difference since senators are on vacation and not conducting business.
“Gimmicks do not override the president’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running,” said one senior administration official, adding that Bush’s lawyers made a similar argument themselves.
Republican leadership aides said it was unlikely that senators would sue the administration over the matter, but industry groups said it was virtually certain it would be challenged in court. They said once the consumer agency issues a regulation, the constitutional issues will be raised.
In 2004, when the Senate was on an 11-day recess, Bush named William Pryor, a former Alabama attorney general, to serve on a federal appeals court. The move infuriated Democrats, and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy sought to take the matter to court since it happened within the 10-day recess window that most presidents respected before giving a recess appointment.
But an appeals court rejected the Kennedy challenge, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Some think the same will happen in this case if it’s challenged in court.
“This is a power the president has always had and every president has exercised,” said Marty Paone, a former Democratic Senate leadership aide who was in charge of floor procedure. “This was a power grab by Congress to take it back. All this does is reorient it to what it’s always been. This restores the balance.”
The GOP has other recourse as well.
Republicans in Congress could block future executive branch appointments until Cordray is removed or changes are made to the CFPB. Or Republicans in the House and Senate can block action on any of Obama’s legislative priorities, like trying to “zero out” funding for the agency.
At the very least, Obama’s move could end the pro forma sessions that have been the norm in recent years, allowing the Senate to officially go on recess.
“In my experience, presidents do get away with recess appointments,” Dove said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71089_Page2.html#ixzz1itni20ND
It probably will end up in court. And it will be allowed to stand. This is nothing more than power grabs by all members of the legislator. Obama sent the message that it isnt going to work.
|
|
|
|
