Latest Breaking News

merrily

(45,251 posts)

68. Okay, I don't think that says a Pres. can order adjournment.

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:30 PM

Jun 2014

Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

If they've already decided to adjourn, but cannot agree on how long, he can decide.

Seems dumb, but I guess someone has to break the tie and the SCOTUS shouldn't be the tiebreaker because it doesn't answer to the people, ever. (Another one we might want to revisit.)

ETA: The reason it's never been done in 225 years is probably because the two Houses have never tied. If they were even tempted to, they'd probably agree, just not to give the the President that power over them.

It would be very intrusive to force them to adjourn. Not really separation of Powers. And it could be abused very easily.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MSNBC announcing that the Supremes narrowed Presidential power to make recess appointments. [View all] merrily Jun 2014 OP

They'll change it back in 2017 tularetom Jun 2014 #1

^^THIS^^ BumRushDaShow Jun 2014 #3

The problem is that the Dems alsame Jun 2014 #16

They did it with Bush. So why wouldn't they do it again? NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #18

You're right, I forgot about alsame Jun 2014 #21

It's actually a good decision because it upholds the broader interpretation of the clause. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #24

Yep, Pete Williams now on alsame Jun 2014 #28

It was unanimous Yo_Mama Jun 2014 #57

Very doubtful, except maybe as to the 3 day stuff which they just made up out of merrily Jun 2014 #58

My bad. The Constituton doesn't say a three day break is too short for merrily Jun 2014 #65

Opinion already up: NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #2

Thank you. MSNBC said it wasn't available, just before I started typing the OP. merrily Jun 2014 #5

Opinion here: rurallib Jun 2014 #4

Thank you. merrily Jun 2014 #7

would you be able/willing to expand so i dont have to read through the decision? leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #6

go to SCOTUS blog and follow along with the rest of us rurallib Jun 2014 #9

im on a break at work and wont be able to do that thath is why i asked what i asked leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #10

sorry - didn't mean it nastily - just rurallib Jun 2014 #35

thanks leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #47

I haven't looked at the opinion yet, but I am sure it is not a short one. merrily Jun 2014 #22

yea the nlrb - i am so sick of losing at the scotus leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #43

Me, too, but the Constitution should not be ignored. merrily Jun 2014 #49

...while the President is Black. nt onehandle Jun 2014 #8

It was a 9-0 decision. former9thward Jun 2014 #12

Who says they aren't racists? merrily Jun 2014 #50

I very much doubt that. This decision will stand a long time. merrily Jun 2014 #13

And there it is, IronGate Jun 2014 #34

Still here? nt onehandle Jun 2014 #45

Yes. IronGate Jun 2014 #56

Unanimous decision. DesMoinesDem Jun 2014 #11

Not surprised. The Constitution is unusually specific about this. merrily Jun 2014 #15

Reading the opinion. As I'm understanding it, the Court ruled that NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #14

That sounds pretty consistent with the constitution, except for the "3 days is too short" merrily Jun 2014 #25

Oops. wrong thread. self-deleted. merrily Jun 2014 #30

Oops. I apologize. They didn't get 3 days from nowhere at all. merrily Jun 2014 #67

The result is no more recess appointments ever Exposethefrauds Jun 2014 #17

I don't think that is the so, but, in any event, the Constitution says what it says. merrily Jun 2014 #31

evcellent point and just what I was thinking rurallib Jun 2014 #38

Warrens bill to make education more affordable was recently killed via merrily Jun 2014 #48

I need some time to look at the details but I tend to agree with this.... Swede Atlanta Jun 2014 #19

Also in the early days, it was a long ride on horseback to and from Maine and NY. merrily Jun 2014 #37

from someone on the blog tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #20

It's in Article I: NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #23

thanks, was looking for an answer online and you be it! tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #26

They could. HOWEVER, there's an interesting clause that's never been used. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #29

the plot thickens... so technically a break can be determined by the President (he or she) if... tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #32

I think that's the idea. But it's never been used once in 225 years, NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #36

True but if you are on the way out and don't care.... tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #41

The President has Constitutional power to force adjournment? merrily Jun 2014 #59

Only if the two houses can't agree on when and how long to NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #62

Wow. I missed that. Why would a President want them to adjourn? merrily Jun 2014 #63

Okay, I don't think that says a Pres. can order adjournment. merrily Jun 2014 #68

1903? Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each made well more than 100. In 1903, leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #46

You may have misread. In tomm's post, 1903 refers to Teddy R. merrily Jun 2014 #60

d'oh -- dopey me leftyohiolib Jun 2014 #64

Please don't do that to yourself. Anyone can misread. merrily Jun 2014 #66

Article I, Section 5(4) of the Constitution. former9thward Jun 2014 #27

Even he went against himself on it. Igel Jun 2014 #33

We have a very disfunctional government. former9thward Jun 2014 #42

It doesn't have to do with separation of powers anyway. merrily Jun 2014 #61

Separate houses are not separate branches of government. merrily Jun 2014 #39

yup tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #40

No worries, tomm. merrily Jun 2014 #55

Please add a link (see below) so that your OP conforms with LBN posting rules. greatauntoftriplets Jun 2014 #44

Quite right. I forgot. Thank you. Will do right now. merrily Jun 2014 #51

Thanks very much. greatauntoftriplets Jun 2014 #52

Most welcome. Thanks for not locking. merrily Jun 2014 #54

The Goops many want to rethink celebrations. maddogesq Jun 2014 #53

Oh, come on now. He did it because they were holding up his appointments. merrily Jun 2014 #69

Yup, he skipped right over the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments... truebrit71 Jun 2014 #70

How is that relevant to recess appointments? merrily Jun 2014 #71

It isn't. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #72

Which sentence was, of course, in the context of the post to which I was replying. merrily Jun 2014 #73

That's a polite way to put it. Yet another way: 9-0 slapped down. maced666 Jun 2014 #74

Did you see merrily Jun 2014 #75