‘The judges observed that no president from George Washington through Abraham Lincoln ever attempted to make an “intrasession” appointment (that is, an appointment when Congress was in session) without the advice and consent of the Senate, as Obama attempted to do. From the end of the Civil War through the end of World War II, only three such appointments were attempted. In the judges’ words, “[I]t is well established that 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution, no President [had] attempted such an appointment, and for decades thereafter, such appointments were exceedingly rare.”[/quote]
Good post and now we could get into real debate if people actually cared to do so here. Why was it so unnecessarily common to do so? Maybe because then the minority would behave like grown ass politicians instead of filibuster loving children? Does it make sense that when minority is pissing all over the political process because they can’t have their way, the President utilizes powers granted to him by the constitution to move on with politics?
“Consistent with the structure of the Appointments Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause exception to it, the filling up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done during the same recess in which the vacancy arose.” [/quote]
This is a newspaper’s opinion, not fact, and does not have any case studies to back it up.
They explained: “There is no reason the Framers would have permitted the President to wait until some future intersession recess.” (Two of the vacancies in question under Obama occurred almost a year and a half before he sought to circumvent the Senate to fill them.)’ - The Weekly Standard[/quote]
Funny how when this is translated to assault weapons, you guys are the first to defend it with some bullshit of a “the founders wrote what they meant” type of argument.