How is Bolton appointment Constitutional? Here is what it says:

[karlrschneider]

Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 3...

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
===================================================================

How could this "vacancy" be described as "happening during the Recess..."?

The Congress only went into recess 2 days ago. Well, 3 days, technically.

Am I completely off base here? :wtf:

[Moochy]

1. A Vacancy is a vacancy until filled

Don't get caught up on the aspect of "happen" its still happening continuously until it's filled.

http://wiki.frath.net/Aspect

[ironman202]

2. technically, the nomination was dead

when they went out of session, thus the vacancy came up and he appointed Bolton a second time during the recess.

[Inland]

3. Cause the Supreme Court reads it differently.

That's the short answer.

[Eric J in MN]

4. You have a point, that the Framers probably meant

only if someone resigns during the recess, creating the vacancy.

But that isn't the tradition of how it's interpreted by presidents.

[annabanana]

5. It's a "loose" interpretation...

It was still "happening" when they went out...

[NMDemDist2]

6. wow excellent point! send it to Reid n/t

[Bryan Buchan]

7. happening during the recess is key here

and I have no expertise regarding the history and legal defining that has taken place to know what this "happening during" means...only to say from my personal opinion I would interpret it would mean something that both "originated and occurred" during recess vs. something that ocurred prior to and yet unresolved. I also know this is nothing new by any means has given the ability of many presidents to appoint during recess

Bryan

[karlrschneider]

8. I know there are many ways to "interpret" Constitutional questions, but

this language seems pretty damn straightforward to me. If something "happens", it just does so at a moment in time, essentially ISTM.
And of course I realize many admins have taken advantage of whatever wiggle room is implied or inferred by the language. One of "my" senators, Inhofe pitched a 'HUGH' bitch when Clinton gave Hormel an ambassadorship during a recess in ...98? Different ox being gored of course. Welcome to DU.

[Moochy]

11. I'm opposed to the abusive of executive power too

But a vacancy is still vacant, during a recess. It may not have started during the recess, but it's still happening, its an ongoing vacancy. And the goal of that section of the constitution was to fill empty posts during the long long recesses that were around back then. ITs clearly a stop-gap measure, a way to fill a post.

The constitution doesn't say anything about why the vacancy came up.
Its still vacant. Bush didnt have the votes, or didnt want the showdown.

[jmowreader]

9. This is an interesting point

I read this clause as:

The Senate goes into Recess--and when this was written, it was envisioned that we'd have a citizen legislature, one in which they'd meet for a couple of months, do all their business and go back home to grow reefer or whatever else it was they did for a living, and not the full-time body we've got now.

The Secretary of War dies two weeks after the Senate recesses. In 1789 you got to Washington in a horse-drawn conveyance and communication was via the mails, so the only options were to go without a Secretary of War or to let the president appoint one until the Senate reconvenes.

The President chooses a good soldier to be Secretary of War, and sends a letter to all the Senators to inform them of what he has done.

This is opposed to what Bush does. He nominates Major-General Stanley to be Secretary of Defense. The Senate objects to his appointment, saying that perhaps the Secretary of Defense should be able to tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin before he takes office. Bush waits until the Senate recesses and installs him as SecDef...and we the taxpayer get to pay him $200,000 a year to learn more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery.

[karlrschneider]

10. Oh, I'm pretty sure you are exactly right, but that puts the "strict

constructionists' into a bit of a bind as they attempt to apply contemporary facts into "intent of the founders" which they go to so many pains to deprecate as "judicial activism"...

grrr

[liberal N proud]

12. Not to be a spoiler but there is a precedent:

Presidents have sometimes used recess appointments to fill vacancies with individuals who might prove difficult to confirm, or who face staunch opposition within the Senate. The recess appointment is made in hopes that, by the next session, opposition will have diminished. In recent years, however, a recess appointment has tended to harden the attitudes of the opposition party, and confirmation then becomes even more difficult.

The site has a list of some of them:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Recess-appointment

[Catholic Sensation]

13. you killed your own argument

How could this "vacancy" be described as "happening during the Recess..."?

The Congress only went into recess 2 days ago. Well, 3 days, technically.

There is nothing about how long into the recess the appointment is made, just that it's made during a congressional recess. Now this is unprecedented in that never has a cabinet level appointment been made during a congressional recess to my knowledge, but as the clause states, there isn't anything unconstitutional about what Bush did. Is this a mistake? Of course, John Bolton is unfit to teach world history to middle schoolers let alone speak for the United States at the United Nations.