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.
"...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.
No it's not at all clear. That's just a figment of your imagination. The words "special" and "session" are not in the clause either separately or together. The phrase is "extraordinary occasions". Occasions and sessions have completely different meanings. Dang!
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.
So is 11 days more or less than 3 days?
The ability to convene is not relevant to this discussion.
Underlined is the 2nd time in this thread that a case has been made for dumping and starting over, or at least significant amendment.
LOL! I used "special session" to impart some contemporary context as that is what the press in our time typically labels the convening when called by the executive. But you already know that don't you?
The condition whereby the president might be allowed to adjourn congress is set forth as I have relayed. Twisting words and meaning into unrecognizable pretzels does not change the language, meaning, or intent of Article 2 Section 3.
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.
Agree, the adjournment clause is obsolete in this modern era. Just like the "Privilege from arrest" clause for members going to or returning from a session. At the time it was meant to include only arrest on the Civil process, which was quasi-common back then, it was not intended to be related to any criminal arrest.
Congress has a very low rating because they don't seem to do anything. If the President forces Congress to adjourn that do-nothing reputation would rub off on the president.
For what prize? Some executive appointments. Not worth the price to be paid, especially since Biden's brand is to go back to business as usual. And I mean that in the most charitable sense.
So is 11 days more or less than 3 days?
The ability to convene is not relevant to this discussion.
Underlined is the 2nd time in this thread that a case has been made for dumping and starting over, or at least significant amendment.
You asked for two examples of where the president could utilize his Article II authority, which is what I provided.
But the ability to convene--specifically as it relates to Congress--is relevant precisely because Biden would only be able to use the adjournment process under Article II (assuming that there was actual disagreement over adjournment via Article I) as a way appoint his nominees under the recess clause if the Senate was adjourned for more than 10 days per the NLRB Supreme Court decision. But, to my earlier points, each house of Congress can reconvene on its own authority; thus, an uncooperative Senate will undoubtedly reconvene in order to ensure that this 10+ day period isn't reached and, thus, deny any president the opportunity to make recess appointments. I bring up the president's convening authority (under extraordinary circumstances) to merely note that the fact that the president can convene Congress under certain circumstances does not mean that each house loses the ability to convene itself.
LOL! I used "special session" to impart some contemporary context as that is what the press in our time typically labels the convening when called by the executive. But you already know that don't you?
The condition whereby the president might be allowed to adjourn congress is set forth as I have relayed. Twisting words and meaning into unrecognizable pretzels does not change the language, meaning, or intent of Article 2 Section 3.
In matters of legality, the preferred terminology of the press is of no import.
Just a reminder, I'm the one sticking with the original words, you're doing the pretzel twisting.
You asked for two examples of where the president could utilize his Article II authority, which is what I provided.
But the ability to convene--specifically as it relates to Congress--is relevant precisely because Biden would only be able to use the adjournment process under Article II (assuming that there was actual disagreement over adjournment via Article I) as a way appoint his nominees under the recess clause if the Senate was adjourned for more than 10 days per the NLRB Supreme Court decision. But, to my earlier points, each house of Congress can reconvene on its own authority; thus, an uncooperative Senate will undoubtedly reconvene in order to ensure that this 10+ day period isn't reached and, thus, deny any president the opportunity to make recess appointments. I bring up the president's convening authority (under extraordinary circumstances) to merely note that the fact that the president can convene Congress under certain circumstances does not mean that each house loses the ability to convene itself.
You keep attempting to redefine the issue as Congress' ability to convene, rather than the President's ability to adjourn, and reconvene under certain limited circumstances. I'm not biting. All the Constitution requires is that Congress meet once a year......The more specific authority granted the President, controls, ....but only when the required conditions are present.
There has been much speculation as to what degree of opposition a R controlled Senate might offer Biden for his appointments that need Senate consent. Personally, I think D concern is overstated, but for these purposes let's presume it's valid.
A Constitutional option open to any president, but that has never been used, is to shut down Congress and make recess appointments which can be valid for almost two years. If particular circumstances pertain the Prez can shut down Congress for as long s/he thinks necessary.
The particular circumstances needed are a disagreement between the House and Senate over how long a recess should be. A ten day or more closure of the Senate is required for the Prez to make a recess appointment. If Mitch is in control, his limit may be nine days to prevent recess appointments. If Nancy were to propose a ten or more day recess that was unacceptable to Mitch, Joe has the power to send both home for as long as he desires. It's in Article II Section 3.
No, that's not what the clause says. The President can continue acting to execute the laws when the two branches of the legislature don't agree on their recess times. This is not the same thing as overriding the legislature unilaterally, nor is it the same as forcing a recess on a legislature that has agreed not to have a recess, or forcing a longer recess on a legislature that has agreed to a short one.
No, that's not what the clause says. The President can continue acting to execute the laws when the two branches of the legislature don't agree on their recess times. This is not the same thing as overriding the legislature unilaterally, nor is it the same as forcing a recess on a legislature that has agreed not to have a recess, or forcing a longer recess on a legislature that has agreed to a short one.
The President still has to follow the law.
Citations to authority please!
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.
). 