Below is today’s column, which concerns the subject upon which I will be testifying this morning before the full House Judiciary Committee: recess appointments.
For most Americans, the term “recess” brings to mind fond memories of free time to play outside the strict rules of the classroom. For presidents, the term can have the same euphoric effect as a free hand to play outside the strict rules of the Constitution.
While the Constitution requires high-level officials to be confirmed by the Senate, an arcane provision in Article II states that a president can make recess appointments when Congress is not in session. However, what if Congress did not think it was recessed and a president handed out appointments over the equivalent of a long weekend? That is the controversy brewing in Congress, which is looking into four appointmentsPresident Obama made in January. Those appointments include that of Richard Cordray, who had been denied confirmation to a consumer protection board in a Republican filibuster.
For the record, I support Cordray, a well-qualified nominee who has been treated poorly by the political system. However, in a nation committed to the rule of law, it is often as important how you do something as what you do. This is not the way to win a fight with Congress over a nomination.
The controversy is loaded with partisan rhetoric and chest pounding on both sides. It is the common lament of academics that the concern over the faithful interpretation of the Constitution arises only when it is politically expedient. Though there are exceptions in Congress, the Cordray appointment is a prime example. Many members who were silent during the recess appointments of George W. Bush have become vocal opponents of the practice under Obama. Conversely, Democrats who now stand silent once cried foul when Bush used recess appointments to circumvent significant opposition to nominees, such as John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.
Yet the latest recess appointments push this controversy to a new extreme. The shortest prior period for a recess appointment in recent history was a break of 10 days. In this case, Congress did not intend to take such a recess and took steps to “stay in business” to prevent any end run by the president. Under the Constitution, neither chamber of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other chamber. This winter, the House expressly declined to give consent — holding sessions every three days to prevent any recess appointments. Moreover, this session was hardly “pro forma.” Just three days after going into the session in December, Congress passed the president’s demand for a two-month payroll tax holiday extension. So the Obama administration was doing business with Congress on important legislation while simultaneously claiming that Congress was functionally out of session.
Since the very first administration, presidents have taken advantage of this free hall pass to fill offices. The first five presidents made dozens of recess appointments, including five to the Supreme Court. Ironically, some of these appointments proved the wisdom of requiring confirmation. For example, George Washington gave a recess appointment in 1795 to John Rutledge of South Carolina to serve as chief justice. Rutledge was later described by his fellow South Carolinians as prone to “mad frollicks” and “frequently so much deranged, as to be in a great measure deprived of his senses.” Rutledge tried repeatedly to drown himself in various rivers before finally resigning within a year of his appointment.
The use of such unilateral power strikes at the very heart of our system of government and dangerously tips the balance of power. President Obama clearly wanted to make a point about his effort to protect consumers. But for the Constitution, that political point comes at too high a price. Replacing an intransigent Congress with an imperial president is no bargain for those who value our constitutional system.
When it made sense
While there can be debate over the precise meaning of Article II’s reference to “vacancies that may happen during the recess,” it was not intended to mean this. The earliest interpretations of this language took the plain meaning of the language as addressing vacancies that occur during a recess. In the early period of the Republic, Congress would often be recessed for six or even nine months out of the year. Alexander Hamilton and others argued that the provision simply reflected this practical necessity to fill positions during breaks.
With the long modern congressional sessions, the motivating concern behind the Recess Appointment Clause is largely gone. It is primarily used today for the purpose that the Framers clearly did not intend — circumventing Congress. For that reason, I have criticized past presidents for appointing submitted nominees who were not confirmed because of congressional opposition.
The Cordray appointment, like its recent precedents, threatens to turn a carefully balanced process of nominations and confirmations into little more than a type of blinking contest with Congress. Putting aside the contradiction with both the language and history of the Constitution, it is bad policy and an abuse of power that all citizens, regardless of party affiliation, should condemn.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. He will testify on the recess appointment power before the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 15.
USA Today February 15, 2012
69 thoughts on “Abuse Of Power: Obama’s Recess Appointments And The Constitution”
The Constitution is Graeco-Masonic anti-Catholic that is why it allows contraceptions and abortions. It was not until the Ellis Island offspring put forth the New Deal that we began to be freed of its oppression. If we bilingually translate it into Spanish, we will further make it better. The Ohio public schools were originally run by the Catholic Church. We must join with the anti-Federalists to return to private ordering of things. We don’t need the Constitution, it is Judaic Deuteronomy Law, not natural law like Roman, the law of the Second Charlemagne, Napoleon, which should rule the earth, starting with our great Fourth Empire of the EU at Brussels. Prussia is Great because Prussians are really Lithuanians, so it is just that Merkel should be the Fourth Charlemagne to rule the world together with China and Islam. Is must blessings Brzezinski for Sineurabia Code uniting Roma, Mecca and Pekino against arrogant, aggressive Greeks, Jews and Hindus.
This just in and I am glad of it.
@Jim: That is only a tragedy if you think a few pennies in your pocket is more important than saving a person’s life.
I wonder since Obama is requiring all of us to purchase health insurance if he will also require Illegal Immigrants to be turned in when they go to the hospital so that they do not get FREE Healthcare. What a tragedy, Americans have to pay and illegals get it for free.
You forgot that he is a Bears fan too!
1) Saying someone else did it first is the worst argument in the history of the universe. The only thing it does is maintain a status quo whereby Democrats and Republicans alike can do anything they want without any regards to law because someone else circumvented the laws before them. On what day and in what year can we finally say that law has to be applied regardless of what happened before? After this term? I’d say that’s fair but I’m willing to bet both Democrats and Republicans will wait to agree to that until after the election results.
2) Any argument that it is OK because it “needs to be done” or it is “for our benefit” and the Congress is “stonewalling” is just as absurd. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and justice is meant to be blind for a reason. Dispassionate application of the law is the only way to ensure a just and fair society. Otherwise, all politicians will interpret the law so as to “get good things done”.
3) Arguments that this is a small violation of the Constitution and that there are bigger fish to fry is the type of mindset that has allowed our liberties to ebb away slowly over time. The same people say that small budget cuts are useless because there are much larger expenditures. In 20 years, the large expenditures will be the small ones and the large consitutional transgressions will be small compared to other violations of our rights.
3) Last I checked Wall Street funded both parties. Say what you want about them but they are quite familiar with the concept of hedging their bets.
4) Don’t agree with some of JT’s politics but damn if he isn’t consistent as hell with his interpretation of law and I can certainly get behind that. And he likes dogs which is also good.
Rule by law, rather than rule of law? Noah V
Unless it’s for the greater good, Right Gene H ?
Happy Birthday 🙂
Comments are closed.