Suing Nancy Pelosi Was Reason for Sidestepping House Metal Detectors, Says GOP's Andrew Clyde

[BumRushDaShow]

35. As a related sidenote to that Article/Section/Clause

When President Obama attempted to do a Recess appointment of several positions - notably head of the CFPB and a couple NLRB members - because the argument was that despite the Senate doing "Pro-forma" sessions (gaveling in every 3 days and then eventually adjourning subject to the call of the chair within about 5 minutes after the benediction & pledge of allegiance), that they really weren't "in session" doing any legislating (no one was ever there), so they were basically "in recess".

Well the GOP had a fit (anything to thwart Obama), sued, and it went all the way to the SCOTUS (National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning) - which unanimously ruled against Obama (although with slightly differing opinions about the details) -

Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments

By Robert Barnes
June 26, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations. Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.

“The Senate is in session when it says it is,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court, stressing that if the Senate is able to conduct business, that is enough to keep the president from making recess appointments.

(snip)

The justices employed Founding-era documents and the long history of recess appointments — there have been thousands of them — to interpret the Constitution’s Recess Clause. It says the president “shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”

(snip)

It was the question of pro forma sessions that had prompted the case. Senate Democrats started such sessions in 2007 to prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Despite encouragement from his advisers to challenge the legitimacy of the sessions, he declined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

In Shrub's case, I believe it was due to installing Bolton as the U.S. Representative to the U.N. via a Recess Appointment (which is temporary until the end of a Congressional session) and that atrocity prompted the then-Democratic-controlled Senate to institute the "Pro-forma" sessions via a Rule, and that Rule has remained ever since. Anyone who is a CSPAN junky can watch those brief "sessions" on CSPAN2 when the Senate is "away" (including during extended holidays or "District work periods" ) where someone volunteers (often the local and/or close-by members) to gavel them in briefly, go through the motions of "Morning Business", and then go into recess "Subject to the Call of the Chair".

Basically, the Senate made its own "Rules" (allowance for "Pro-forma" sessions) and defined what that meant (every 3 days, since there is a mention in the Constitution in that same Article 1/Section 5 with that time frame, and that is what they used) -

Article I

(snip)

Section 5.

(snip)

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei