More

Obama Recess Appointments: Justice Department Says They Are Constitutional

Obama Recess Appointment

PETE YOST   01/12/12 09:31 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said Obama has endangered the nation's systems of checks and balances, and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says the appointments are a very grave decision by an autocratic White House.

Senate Republicans have been using their ability to block or stall Senate confirmation of some regular nominees as a way to curb agencies they believe have taken or are poised to take actions they disagree with.

On Jan. 4, Obama appointed Richard Cordray, a former attorney general of Ohio, to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama also appointed two Democrats and a Republican to the National Labor Relations Board that day. There was stiff Republican opposition to creating the new consumer agency, which was authorized in the financial regulation law, and Republicans have argued that the labor board has tilted toward unions under Obama's Democratic administration.

The Justice official who wrote the opinion, Seitz, heads the department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is empowered to provide binding legal opinions to the executive branch.

Her new memo cites a Justice Department legal opinion from President George W. Bush's Republican administration in justifying Obama's recent appointments. The Bush administration opinion from 2004 says that a recess during a session of the Senate can meet constitutional requirements for permitting the president to make recess appointments as long as the recess is of sufficient length. Seitz noted that the last five presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of 14 days or less.

In December, the Senate agreed to adjourn until Jan. 23 but to convene pro forma sessions in which no business was to be conducted every Tuesday and Friday.

The Senate pro forma sessions in which no business was conducted, do not "in our opinion" interrupt the recess "in a manner that would preclude the president" from acting, Seitz wrote in her Jan. 6 opinion.

Beginning in late 2007, the Senate has frequently conducted pro forma sessions that typically last only a few seconds and that "apparently require the presence of only one senator," Seitz wrote. Under a legal framework dating back nearly a century, recess appointments have been permitted when the Senate cannot receive communications from the president or participate as a body in confirming nominees.

In an op-ed article in the Washington Post, Edwin Meese, who served as attorney general under Republican President Ronald Reagan, and Todd Gaziano, a former Office of Legal Counsel attorney who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called Obama's actions "a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers."

The GOP's unsuccessful opposition to creating the consumer watchdog agency has turned into opposition to potential nominees to lead the office. Stiff Republican opposition headed Obama off from even nominating Elizabeth Warren, the interim official who helped set up the office, to be its permanent chief.

There is GOP resistance as well to filling slots on the National Labor Relations Board that Republicans feel has become pro-labor under Obama. If Republicans keep enough slots vacant on the labor board, they can prevent it from acting at all.

The pro forma sessions have been used by both Democratic and Republican senators in an effort to stave off recess appointments.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in 2008 that the pro forma sessions were designed to prevent the president – at that time Bush – from exercising his constitutional power to make recess appointments.

Last year with Obama in the White House, some Republican senators urged House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, not to pass any resolution that would allow the Senate to recess or adjourn for more than three days. The Constitution provides that neither the House nor the Senate shall adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. No concurrent resolution of adjournment has been introduced in either chamber since May of last year.

Read the entire opinion below:
Obama recess appointments DOJ decision


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other of...
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other of...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12,346
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (154 total)
  1 of 7  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Dennis 02:03 PM on 01/12/2012
"This Office has consistently advised that “a recess during a session of the Senate, at least if it is sufficient length, can be a ‘Recess’ within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause” during which the President may exercise his power to fill vacant offices.  Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jack L. Goldsmith III,  Read More... (“Goldsmith Memorandum”).1  Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 through January 23, in our judgment, those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the President from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to “‘receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.’”  Intrasession Recess Appointments, 13 Op. O.L.C. 271, 272 (1989) (quoting Executive Power—Recess Appointments, 33 Op. Att’y Gen. 20, 24 (1921) (“Daugherty Opinion”)).  Thus, the President has the authority under the Recess Appointments Clause to make appointments during this period.  The Senate could remove the basis for the President’s exercise of his recess appointment authority by remaining continuously in session and being available to receive and act on nominations, but it cannot do so by providing for pro forma sessions at which no business is to be conducted. "  (Emphasis Added)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
apipewriter
10:11 PM on 02/03/2012
We've been waiting for "an autocratic President" out of this cool dude for a long time lol... Obama/Biden 2012!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
11:30 AM on 02/03/2012
"Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said Obama has endangered the nation's systems of checks and balances"

The republicans did that when they abandoned "advise and consent". Obama did what he had to do to support "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof". In particular, the republicans have fought against the President's Constitutional obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" - including the valid laws that republicans hate.
photo
JudMiller
Truth Telling is All I Know
01:43 PM on 01/18/2012
The Hill is reporting today that these pretend "recess appointments" will most likely not stand up to court scrutiny.
11:34 AM on 01/15/2012
The King has ruled..
12:01 PM on 01/15/2012
like the Emperor with no Clothes.
09:48 AM on 01/15/2012
They get to recess until January 23rd?? The entire group of them wouldn't last 5 minutes in the 'real world'...I'd like to vote for 2 months off but they would call it lazy.
photo
Danish Lass
Think before you speak.
09:00 AM on 01/15/2012
Go Obama! Getting things done in spite of obstruction and it's legal!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
research b4 you post
03:24 AM on 01/15/2012
wasn't it during a republican pro forma session that a representative was denied to speak, cut off mics and C-Span? The session was gaveled in, pledge was said then it was gaveled out even though the representative wanted to speak. So if the only business to be done was the pledge, and nothing else allowed............................
01:31 AM on 01/15/2012
Hmmmmm ... so Holder sues Arizona for enforcing clear Immigration Laws on the books .. but backs Obama when trampling on Congress ??

Overall I think the "Reid Rule" .. yes, Democrats started this .. the Reid Rule needs to go .. keeping Congress in session this way is a farce. But the double standard here is amazing, the hypocrisy, .. Progressives are having it both ways .. blocking Bush appointments using Congress then overriding Congress with a Democrat White House.
08:26 AM on 01/15/2012
Arizona's SB 1070 is a clearly illegal encroachment onto exclusive federal territory... immigration is under federal jurisdiction, not state. That's why it is preempted... and the federal district court said so. Go argue with that federal judge.

Bush's recess appointment of Bolton occurred after he had already been rejected by majority vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... a Republican Majority committee. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell opposed his nomination.

Richard Cordray won majority support of the Senate with 53 votes, but was illegitimately blocked by filibuster not because of objection to him in particular -- they said that they'd block anybody who was nominated -- but because the Republican minority in the Senate is trying to derail a duly-passed law of Congress that they object to. That is an illegitimate abuse of procedure.
11:42 AM on 01/15/2012
I feel real secure with the outstanding job Border Patrol is doing. BUT The state is doing its job as well of protecting its citizens from crimnal activity with in its state. Clearly Arizona was carrying out not just state laws but federal ones as well securing and arrestting criminals. Like it or not bleeding hearts crossing the border without proper permits is a felony.
06:56 PM on 01/15/2012
So is the Reid Rule a farce or not? Would you have supported Bush flipping Reid the Bird much like Obama has done to this Congress? Seems you are rationalizing the D = Good, R = Bad mentality on here .. Cordray would run an Agency that hasn't even been set up yet, an Agency the GOP and myself are against, ... Obama is on a power grab using Homeland Security, CZars, the EPA and now the CPFB ..

Ugh, the Dems filibustered Bolton according to this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#The_Democrats.27_filibuster

States enforce Federal Law all the time, and are forced to abide by Federal Rules all the time using their resources .. except when it comes to Immigration, and ONLY Immigration. Why is that?? I'd be more than happy to argue with that Federal Judge and kick his a-$$ at the same time. These Fools basically invalidated Federal Immigration Rules copied and pasted by the Arizona Legislation...

So do you think a State has NO right to control its border? No right to enforce Criminal Activity "supposedly" on the Federal Level?? No right to control the flow of people in and out of it?? What do you think Hawaii does?? Are Hawaiian's Racist for their policy??

One man's slick political move is another man's abuse of Power BOTH sides pull this stuff .. right now Democrats and Obama are getting away with Breaking the Rules, Rules they (Reid) created.
FoundersFan
right = correct
12:45 AM on 01/15/2012
Wow, the Obama Justice Department says it's legal for Obama to make recess appointments when there is no recess. Who'd uh thunk it? Excuse me if I anxiously await what the Supreme Court will say about it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
research b4 you post
03:33 AM on 01/15/2012
They SHOULD say that if no business may be heard during a pro forma session, then it is still in recess
FoundersFan
right = correct
09:22 AM on 01/15/2012
And that's exactly what you thought when Harry Reid and the Democrats started this tactic--right?
08:31 AM on 01/15/2012
Wow... still crying over things you don't understand and making things up? Who'd uh thunk it?

Doubtful that it gets past the DC Circuit... if a case even gets filed.
FoundersFan
right = correct
09:19 AM on 01/15/2012
The Constitution-bashing DC Circuit even said the incredibly unConstitutional DC gun ban was okay. What happened to that DC decision?

As I said, I can't wait until the Supreme Court gets this.
lucy88lucy
use your brain
09:38 PM on 01/14/2012
Time for the o to take another vacation. 10 more months till a wake up!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
research b4 you post
03:40 AM on 01/15/2012
He really should. Maybe a two day trip to Camp David to rest up for all the bull that's to come from those pesky reps. But I don't think it will take 10 months until the country wakes up from the Rush/Beck/Hannity mesmerized state, they should start snapping out of it when the Obama/Romney debates get going.
11:37 AM on 01/15/2012
:0)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:08 PM on 01/14/2012
It seems to me that the technicality of just a few congressmen being present counting as "in session" is a rule that exists solely for the purpose of getting around the rules restricting when recesses are allowed and what can be done during them. If there is any legitimate purpose behind that rule, I'd like to hear it explained.
photo
icwhite02
Keep giving them all the rope they need
09:54 PM on 01/14/2012
If no business was being conducted, & I do believe that was the legal "qualifier" Seitz stipulated, then they were still in RECESS! I don't think a Repugnant/tbagger walking in the door for a couple seconds & "depositing more hot air" to actually be conducting BUSINESS, unless they actually do a #2 on the floor.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:26 AM on 01/15/2012
Couldn't agree more, especially if no one else can provide a legitimate justification for that rule. Why does it exist? Functions shouldn't exist unless they have a specific purpose, which for this I have not heard of, besides the sketchy one that I suggested.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Judie Vc
rMONEY OUTSPENDS SICKY 6:1 ON Mi = UNELECTABLE!!!!
07:19 PM on 01/14/2012
Duh, what a shock....like we didn't think O would have dotted his i's and crossed his t's.
In your face, GOTP, come November we'll tell you elitist supporting hypocrites where to go and icing on the cake you'll have to swallow having a half black POTUS for another 4 years.

In your elitists clannish faces!!
photo
icwhite02
Keep giving them all the rope they need
09:56 PM on 01/14/2012
You mean "elitist clique!" Aclan is a good thing, a clique, not so much.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Victor Trevino
That's Ridiculous
12:01 AM on 01/15/2012
maybe he meant klan with a K
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Judie Vc
rMONEY OUTSPENDS SICKY 6:1 ON Mi = UNELECTABLE!!!!
06:08 PM on 01/15/2012
Agreed, clans are good but not when it goes to the point of being exclusive as in tribalism. I meant more like " elitist tribalist" faces.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Steaphens
It's all about liberty.
03:05 AM on 01/15/2012
Just because it's legal doesn't exactly mean it's good.Obama is surrounded by radicals,so I'd expect his appointments to be the same.
08:33 AM on 01/15/2012
You use that word "radical" as if you know what it means.
seraphimblade
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
06:46 PM on 01/14/2012
Those Senators complaining about constitutional issues need to examine their own behavior.

The "advice and consent" provision wasn't meant to give the Senate power to obstruct a federal agency from operating at all, by refusing ALL appointments to it. Nor was it intended to essentially require a 3/5th majority rather than a simple majority.

Nor can I imagine that the writers of the Constitution intended that the House or Senate can keep themselves from being "in recess" by holding pretend sessions without even a quorum present. If they've taken a period of time off from being present to legislate, they are, for all intents and purposes, in recess. If they've gone into a recess without the consent of the other body, it is they who are in violation of Constitutional requirements.

What they seem to want is to have it both ways-stay "in session" year round to prevent recess appointments, but not actually BE there year round. They can have one or the other of those, but not both.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
josie klapper
Who can I piss-off today?
01:00 PM on 01/14/2012
Would serve certain congress critters right if PRESIDENT Obama used his power as both the Commander and Chief and the Chief Executive of the US to have the "not in recess" but not at work congress critters rounded up and returned to Wash D.C. where they are meant to be in session when not in recess.
I suspect that would really give some obstructionists something to really cry about.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
josie klapper
Who can I piss-off today?
12:55 PM on 01/14/2012
If the Congress doesn't even pretend that they have a quorum, they are either AWOL or in recess.