It would be awfully convenient for Obama if it did.
Heritage has the answer:
The Constitution, in Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate—consistent with the requirements of the Constitution—is having pro forma sessions every few days. In short, Congress is still in session, and no one in Congress is saying (or can reasonably say) otherwise. It does not matter a wit that most Members of Congress are not in town voting on legislation, because ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred.
So, yeah. We have constitutional law professor, an academic, for a President who naturally believes himself above that which he studies; in this case the Constitution.
out
Then how can Article 2, Section 3 be invoked? If neither chamber can recess without the consent of the other, how can there ever be a "disagreement"? It seems more logical that, if the Senate had expressed a desire to recess but was unable to do so because the House wouldn't consent, that such a disagreement would exist and the President would have the authority to declare them to be in recess IAW the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteArticle 2 Section 3:
ReplyDeletehe may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
My post still stands. The President did not adjourn either house, thus with Congress still in session when he made his "recess" appointments, he acted unconstitutionally.
Even when Obama has the authority to do a thing Constitutionally he chooses to do it unconstitutionally. The man's contempt for the Constitution is quite deep.