WTF is ambiguous about this? IMO, this appointment is illegal.

[fooj]

Section 2
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.


So, what's the deal? Randi says no. I say YES! This vacancy DID NOT HAPPEN during the Recess. This nomination has been up for MONTHS! What am I missing?

Peace.

:smoke:

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Completely agree with you. HOWEVER, what is the historical precedent?

[napi21]

5. Every other President in recent history has done this!

I heard today what the stats are. Clinton-140, GH Bush 125, and Reagan-240. Shrub is at 128 or so, and on current track, will beat Reagan's record.

Those #'s may no be the exact ones I heard, but they are very close.

The Dems can complain, but there's so much precident, I don't think we can push the illegal angle.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

9. But the RW are STRICT constitutionalists!

And precedent only matters in the judicial branch. If it hasn't been challenged in court previously, there is no precedent. I don't see how the SC could ignore the constitution when it is so clear...but then the SC can do whatever the hell it wants.

[firefox]

2. The Constitution is dead

That is a pretty sharp observation. I see your point, but the government is run by the power of money and not any Constitution.

[moodforaday]

3. Looks like you're right to me

But you'd probably have to allow for custom, i.e. look into recess appointments made by previous presidents. Clinton apparently made 140. Did all those vacancies happen during a recess?

[mike_c]

4. evidently it's not as simple as it seems....

www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf

Scroll down to "For the Purposes of Recess Appointments, What Constitutes a Vacancy?"

I can't seem to cut and paste from that doc, but the gist is that Attorney's General have long interpreted the clause liberally, i.e. to mean a vacancy continuing into a recess as well as on first occuring during the recess, and I gather that no court challange has ever been made.

[fooj]

6. Thanks for the info.

That was very informative. I still think that it's BS! Why the hell even have anyone approved through congress?

Peace.

[endarkenment]

7. "may happen"

has been interpreted to mean "may happen to exist" for 200 or so years.

Look forget about the cosntitutional angle, celebrate the fact that Bush looks like a fool for having to go around and sneak an appointment of the disgraced Bolton.

We won this one. Democratic senators stood together for once.

[wli]

8. "edge-triggered" vs. "level-triggered"

Responses to changes in conditions are edge-triggered if they respond when the change in the condition occurs. Responses to changes in conditions are level-triggered if they response to the condition as opposed to the change in conditions.

The clause is ambiguous as to whether the response to the vacancy is edge-triggered or level-triggered. Apparently, the precedent is that it's level-triggered.

[endarkenment]

11. oh you geeked right over the top there.

shame on you :-)

edge triggered vs level triggered.

Go back to your device driver I think it has a bug.

[wli]

13. I suppose I can't hide being a kernel programmer.

At least I have the luxury of working on UNIX-style kernels.

[rock]

10. The Constitution is not the law

Or maybe a better way of putting it is, if the officials and the judges don't enforce the Constitution, it's just writing on paper. The Soviet Union had a great constitution that gave the citizens even more freedoms than we enjoyed. Of course it was just words on paper.

[endarkenment]

12. 200 years of precedent.

There simply is no constitutional issue here.