recess appointments


“The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”
— The Constitution,
Article II, Section 2
When on Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama swore to defend the Constitution, he did not mean all of it. He evidently believes that the provision quoted above merely expresses the Framers’ now anachronistic anxieties about abuses of executive power. (Jefferson’s lengthy catalogue of George III’s abuses is called the Declaration of Independence.) So on Jan. 4, 2012, Obama simply ignored the Recess Clause.
He was in his “We can’t wait!” — for Congress and legality — mode, as he was when he unilaterally rewrote laws pertaining to welfare, immigration and education. On Jan. 4, he used recess appointments to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even though the Senate said it was not in recess. Obama’s cheeky Humpty Dumpty rejoinder was: I decide what “recess” means. Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says.
In 2011, the Noel Canning company, which bottles soft drinks in Yakima, Wash., was negotiating a labor contract with Teamsters Local 760. The union says it and the company reached a verbal agreement. The company disagrees. An administrative law judge sided with the union. On Feb. 8, after Obama’s disputed appointments, the NLRB upheld that decision and asked a federal court to enforce it. Noel Canning is asking the court to declare that the NLRB’s intervention in the dispute was unlawful because the board lacked a quorum until Obama made the recess appointments, which were invalid because the Senate was not in recess.
In support of the company, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and 41 members of his caucus have filed a brief arguing that the recess appointments “eviscerated” two of the Senate’s constitutional powers — to “determine the rules of its proceedings” and to reject presidential appointments...
Read the rest of George Will's column.  If the current regime is returned to office on November 6th, things will only get worse.


Opeining salvo challenging those "recess" appointments...there are sure to be others.  More unintended consequences for your delectation.

Suit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia asserting that the interim appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are constitutionally invalid because there was no recess and that without valid appointments to the NLRB it lacks a quorum and under Supreme Court law cannot act on new rules or doctrines.

Long story short: there is no certainty to any NLRB action while this is pending.

Here you go.

Subscribe to recess appointments