Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's some school of thought that Biden should go full out dictator, using Trump's own words "the president has UNLIMITED power". Biden's abuse of power would be challenged by the R's and would go the to SCOTUS, who will rule and give a precedence on executive authority. Hopefully the SCOTUS would rule the president has limited powers and is subject to checks and balances that are defined in the constitution.
The purpose of Biden going all out dictator is to limit the powers of the future presidents so we don't have a dictator in our future.
In other words, we have to destroy the 'village' to save it?
Article II Section 3 only speaks to disagreements between the two houses with respect to the time of adjournment. Are you implying that the Constitution allows the President to adjourn Congress whenever there is a disagreement, about anything, between the two houses? If so, then you're wrong.
The President might theoretically have this power, likely intended only for the very greatest emergencies.
But if he/she exercised this power, it would probably mean the end of our republic. The Senate, if in opposition control, would balk at being closed down, the House, if in Dem hands, would mock the Senate and side with the Prez, and the Supremes would stay silent because they fear retribution from both sides if they take a stand.
People would be rioting in the streets. No legislative matters would be handled.
And increasing #'s of Americans would be persuaded that democracy simply doesn't work and what we need is some kind of dictatorship or oligarchy.
Article I refers*to the normal course of business, and is subordinate to Article II, only on extraordinary occasions. Who decides what's extraordinary? Who declares a national state of emergency?
The issue then is not about adjourning the House or Senate, it's about adjourning both, i.e. Congress.
You're misreading some things. Yes, Article I (in the case of adjournment) refers to normal course of business, while Article II refers to what happens when the normal course of business is not followed (i.e. when there is disagreement over adjourning either house of Congress). Under Article II, a president can only adjourn if there is disagreement between the houses over granting concurrence to adjourn. But Article I sets the power of Congress to act; the president cannot just try to implement Article II here absent action (or failure to act due to nonconcurrence) by Congress under Article I. The power of adjournment in Article I is not subordinate to the power of the president to adjourn under Article II. They operate hand in hand and the president cannot exercise his Article II power to adjourn absent Congress failing to agree on adjournment terms. Article II as far as adjournment is concerned merely ensures that one house cannot hold the other house hostage. It gives either house an out via the president to order an adjournment if one house is being petty and won’t sign off on the other house trying to go on a longer break.
Article II also gives the president the power to convene Congress during extraordinary circumstances (extraordinary circumstances only refers to convening Congress . . . Article II spells out what circumstance--specifically, if both houses can't agree on adjournment--applies for adjournment). But neither house loses the power to convene themselves as a result of the president's ability to do so under extraordinary circumstances. So, again, this is irrelevant unless one house (in this case, the Senate) agrees to play along with the White House as a house could just reconvene itself even if the White House chose to adjourn with the plan of reconvening 10 days after the fact.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 12-14-2020 at 11:29 AM..
Article II Section 3 only speaks to disagreements between the two houses with respect to the time of adjournment. Are you implying that the Constitution allows the President to adjourn Congress whenever there is a disagreement, about anything, between the two houses? If so, then you're wrong.
The President might theoretically have this power, likely intended only for the very greatest emergencies.
But if he/she exercised this power, it would probably mean the end of our republic. The Senate, if in opposition control, would balk at being closed down, the House, if in Dem hands, would mock the Senate and side with the Prez, and the Supremes would stay silent because they fear retribution from both sides if they take a stand.
People would be rioting in the streets. No legislative matters would be handled.
And increasing #'s of Americans would be persuaded that democracy simply doesn't work and what we need is some kind of dictatorship or oligarchy.
Just don't do it, Joe!
You make a great case for dumping the Constitution and starting over...
You're misreading some things. Yes, Article I (in the case of adjournment) refers to normal course of business, while Article II refers to what happens when the normal course of business is not followed (i.e. when there is disagreement over adjourning either house of Congress). Under Article II, a president can only adjourn if there is disagreement between the houses over granting concurrence to adjourn. But Article I sets the power of Congress to act; the president cannot just try to implement Article II here absent action (or failure to act due to nonconcurrence) by Congress under Article I. The power of adjournment in Article I is not subordinate to the power of the president to adjourn under Article II. They operate hand in hand and the president cannot exercise his Article II power to adjourn absent Congress failing to agree on adjournment terms. Article II as far as adjournment is concerned merely ensures that one house cannot hold the other house hostage. It gives either house an out via the president to order an adjournment if one house is being petty and won’t sign off on the other house trying to go on a longer break.
Article II also gives the president the power to convene Congress during extraordinary circumstances (extraordinary circumstances only refers to convening Congress . . . Article II spells out what circumstance--specifically, if both houses can't agree on adjournment--applies for adjournment). But neither house loses the power to convene themselves as a result of the president's ability to do so under extraordinary circumstances. So, again, this is irrelevant unless one house (in this case, the Senate) agrees to play along with the White House as a house could just reconvene itself even if the White House chose to adjourn with the plan of reconvening 10 days after the fact.
Why don't you give me two examples of situations where you believe the President could legitimately use his Article II powers?
"...recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;"
If one observes the punctuation in this particular paragraph it will be clear the president's power of adjournment is only with regard to any "special session" of congress that he might convene due to an extraordinary occasion. This clause has nothing to do with the responsibility of Congress to agree on conditions of it's own adjournment in normal session, which rules have been set forth in Article 1 Section 5.
Why don't you give me two examples of situations where you believe the President could legitimately use his Article II powers?
1) For adjournment, when there is disagreement between the houses of Congress over consent to allow either to adjourn for greater than 3 days. I could see an increasingly partisan House (or Senate) foreseeably (even if I don't think it would actually come to pass) refusing to allow the other to adjourn for longer than three days if one house wants to leave town without passing an important piece of legislation (perhaps Covid relief ).
2) Less clear are the extraordinary circumstances that would justify POTUS convening a Congress that doesn't want to convene, but it has been used in the past to consider war legislation and certain other emergency legislation.
Whether these things are likely to happen is another story. And, even if they did happen, the president's power isn't unlimited as each house of Congress (to the extent that they choose to exercise it) still has the trump card. As discussed, the power to convene and adjourn Congress under certain circumstances doesn't mean that Congress loses the power to do so itself.
Ultimately, given that each house can hold pro forma sessions where a member or two gavels in and out once a day to remain "in session," much of this debate is for naught even from an academic perspective. The only time I think Congress "has" to adjourn is for the period closing out one Congress until the newly elected Congress is sworn in.
Honestly, these sections were written for a different time and place where people were stil traveling via horse and buggy. I don't know if I see these sections being realistically utilized today. And, if the are, what I've written still applies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 