Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« The Lincoln letter | Main | Fast & Furious: a reply to "but it was done under Bush, too." »

Interesting thoughts on recess appointments

Posted by David Hardy · 19 December 2011 04:52 PM

Publius Huldah makes an interesting point. The custom has been for presidents to make recess appointments (requiring no Senate confirmation, but good only until the end of the next Senate session) whenever a job is open and the Senate goes out of session. But the constitutional provision relates only to vacancies that occur while the Senate is in recess, not to filling vacancies that existed before then. The purpose wasn't to circumvent the confirmation requirement, but to enable it to be sidestepped if the Senate were not in session to consider the nominee. It shouldn't be usable where the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session, and the Senate either declined to confirm, or the president neglected to nominate.

· General con law

9 Comments | Leave a comment

rspock | December 20, 2011 8:23 AM | Reply

Got Tea?

Harry Schell | December 20, 2011 11:11 AM | Reply

I suspect a number of appointments have been improperly made by Presidents beside Obama, but it would be interesting to know how many and whom. The law is pretty clear, that it has been ignored no precedent if we are a country of law.

fwb | December 20, 2011 11:52 AM | Reply

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying on Volokh and other places for years.

The grammatical syntax of the sentence is such that the vacacy must occur during the recess not that the filling up can occur during the recess for any vacancy.

But the Constitution is the most corrupted document in history with the courts leading the way with invalid and improper decisions.

I do not know who the first president was that didn't understand the vacancy clause but even back to Reagan it was being done.

It is time to throw out all the bums and start over.

fwb | December 20, 2011 11:53 AM | Reply

Everybody should have to go back to school and learn how to diagram a sentence like we did in the 50s and 60s. AND everyone should have to go out and fully study a second language so they would better understand their native language.

fwb | December 20, 2011 11:58 AM | Reply

I checked my blogspot blog and I posted the same topic and discussion on it in July 9, 2010.

Jim D. | December 20, 2011 2:18 PM | Reply

I'd be happy if the government just gave us the version of the Constitution they were ACTUALLY using. It's obviously not the one they show us now.

Jim | December 20, 2011 4:49 PM | Reply

But Jim D., if they did that, then they would have to follow that one. Whatever would they do when it didn't fit their agenda any longer?

fwb | December 21, 2011 9:28 AM | Reply

Everyone should purchase and read a copoy of Tribe's The Invisible Constitution. It might help you understand from where the courts get their stuff.

Of just take a copy of the Constitution and format it to triple space. Then you can see where the courts read between the lines.

We have not had a constitutional government EVER. Early on Congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts. They passed the Militia Act defining the Militia but Congress has absolutely no legitimate authority to define any words of the Constitution because IF they can define one word, they can define all the words and the Constitution is moot.

ParatrooperJJ | December 21, 2011 10:57 AM | Reply

Unfortunatly it's not likely to get corrected. The courts will claim the political question doctrine and refuse to hear the case.

Leave a comment