it's never been tested. so it just comes down to scotus. the language reads:

"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"

this is clearly procedural and just gives the president the power to force congress to be in session and adjourn during emergencies. the adjournment referred to here certainly refers to daily adjournment. not multi-day recesses. the recess appointment clause reads:

"and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies."

so, clearly, recess appointments do not bypass the "advice and consent" power of congress.

i doubt even a 9 scalia/alito/thomas justices would permit potus to thwart to constitution through procedural tricks. and, even if they did allow a recess appointment to be done this way, congress would just dismiss them when they reconvened. potus certainly does not have the power to completely subvert democracy by having congress take a permanent recess.

also, the power of the president's appointees flows from potus. there is no "secretary of state" or "attorney general" mentioned in the constitution. there are no cabinet positions or ministers individually specified. these are just people that act on the potus's behalf. of the position is vacant, trump could just do whatever he wanted them to do.

anyway, because it's never been tested, it's technically unknown. i find it extremely unlikely because it is incompatible with the text and intent of the constitution. the fact that no one has ever tried it should tell you how much of a viable plan it is.

remember, the recess appointment section also includes SCOTUS vacancies. if this had any chance of happening, a potus would have used it during a contentious scotus confirmation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48353929)

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

There's an obama era case on this. Its clearly about multi-day adjournments. The obama case had something to do about setting a 10 days requirement for something. Also the "extraordinary occasions" doesn't refer to Case of Disagreement.

The point about them being temporary appointments makes sense but politically its good to get them in there quickly. Also wont they have a better chance with the new congress?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48353978)

i'm going to reread that but i very much doubt they sua sponte created brand new law interpreting the (as far as i know) never before used power of the president to convene and adjourn congress. why would they be discussing section 3 at all?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354057)

well, you may want to read the Obama recess appointment case where this was outlined as exactly the process to follow to get around an intransigent Senate as long as the President had sufficient support in the House

"the adjournment referred to here certainly refers to daily adjournment"

seems unlikely this power to adjourn until he sees fit was seen as setting the daily schedule, and not more in line with the British monarch's power to dismiss a Parliament he had summoned

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48353981)

regardless of the purpose and length of the adjournment, i find it very unlikely that scotus would allow potus to use a procedural trick to deny congress one of it's enumerated powers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354011)

I think it said intrasession appointments can only take place during 10+ day adjournments

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354025)

Finally, the Solicitor General warns that our holding may “ ‘disrup[t] the proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 64 (quoting Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 695 (1988) ; alteration in original). We do not see, however, how our holding could significantly alter the constitutional balance. Most appointments are not controversial and do not produce friction between the branches. Where political controversy is serious, the Senate unquestionably has other methods of preventing recess appointments. As the Solicitor General concedes, the Senate could preclude the President from making recess appointments by holding a series of twice-a-week ordinary (not pro forma) sessions. And the nature of the business conducted at those ordinary sessions—whether, for example, Senators must vote on nominations, or may return totheir home States to meet with their constituents—is a matter for the Senate to decide. The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, §3 (“[I]n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper”).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354036)

first blush this seems like dicta, not something the supreme court would find precedential. also, it's mentioned in the context of *precluding* a potus from making recess appointments. idk in this context why he mentions potus's recess power here, hope it's clear when i read. breyer just breifly mentions it, doesn't lay out all the ways it could be used.

this whole case is about balancing potus's power to keep the government functioning while preserving congress's powers. forcing a recess to make a recess appointment potus does not think the senate would consent to is precisely the type of abuse this case seems to be balancing against.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354086)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354117)

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days"

Seems to me that it would be if one chamber refuses consent to adjourn for more than three days, the President may adjourn them to such time as he thinks proper

makes more sense than assuming the Constitution included a power for one House to decide whether the other could sit starting at 9am or 10am when summoned under this particular heading, and give the President the power to mediate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354107)

i agree that it's procedural and intended for the president to mediate if congress cannot agree. i spoke too liberally with "daily", what i meant is that it's more about housekeeping than anything else. i don't think has anything to do with the 3 day portion of art 1. except perhaps if one side of congress wasn't letting the other adjourn for some reason. but then it would be an "extraordinary circumstance" . especially in 1789 when convening and recessing congress was a bigger deal because of travel.

either way, just because it might be able to be used if one part didn't let allow the other to adjourn, i don't think that means it could be used to *force* the other to adjourn when it wants to remain in session. why would the president have that power? if the house wants to adjourn and the senate lets it, for what reason would the house want to *force* the senate to adjourn?

if there is any legitimate reason for the house to want to force the senate's adjournment, i very much doubt it extend to denying the senate's consent power. after all, if it did, why not just give each side the power to force adjournment through a supermajority or something?

anyway, seems pretty clear that it's ministerial to me. i don't think 9 super scalias doing pure strict textualism would hold that this potus can recess the senate to make recess appointments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354165)

did you create this thread just to keep saying "no, you're wrong?" you started a thread about this but your replies are a couple sentences with nothing beyond bare statements with no reasoning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354180)

1) neither chamber has the power to force the other to adjourn.

2) even if they did, scotus would never permit this to be used as a pretext to subvert an enumerated power.

i can't stop you from believing potus has this amazing power to force through appointees without senate consent. if the fact it's never been attempted isn't persuasive to you then nothing will be. and this won't be resolved, because not even trump would attempt it, because it's retarded. so, since it will never be conclusively resolved, enjoy believing potus possesses this silver bullet but just doesn't use it for unexplained reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354462)

what they do have the power to do is pass law. if the house passed a bill, and the senate didn't pass it, that would be an actual political disagreement and happens constantly. most house bills never get a vote. so, under your theory, doesn't that mean the president could adjourn congress the moment one chamber passes a bill and the other doesn't?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354492)

1. The house passes a concurrent resolution to adjourn the house and senate

2. The senate rejects the resolution, causing a Case of Disagreement as to adjournment

3. The president resolves the disagreement by adjourning both houses.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354497)

so to you, even though the clause begins with "he may on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them", the second part, contained with in the same sentence, refers to *any* adjournment, not only the "extraordinary occasion" sessions he forces to convene.

and, even though neither chamber can force the other to adjourn, if they try to force the other to adjourn, and the other side refuses, potus can force them to.

and, even if there is no real disagreement over adjournment, as there wouldn't be because the senate would permit the house to adjourn, this could be used as a pretext for potus to adjourn congress.

and, this potus adjournment is limitless because there are no enumerated exceptions, therefore potus could completely shut down the legislature at will when he controls one chamber

and, this power is so limitless, that not only could potus prevent congress from convening to enact law, it could even prevent them from exercising specific enumerated powers. including a power explicitly delegated to one chamber.

therefore, if potus control the house, he can absolute authority to appoint anyone without the senate's consent.

but, despite potus frequently controlling the house, this power has never been used.

but trump will use it to make matt gaetz ag if the senate doesn't confirm, even though he never used it when the senate was did not confirm various other appointees. matt gaetz is just that special. nevermind the fact that, unlike art 3 judges, the ag doesn't have independent power, but is just delegated some of potuses. also, potus has the power to appoint an acting ag through confirmation process, so he wouldn't even have to serve this role himself. or he could just direct deputy ag's to do what he would want matt gaetz to do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354529)

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-house-has-no-authority-to-disagree-with-senates-decision-to-remain-in-session/

That power only comes into play if both houses can’t agree on the specific time they should adjourn, and it’s largely irrelevant in the era of airplanes and near year round sessions anyway.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354008)

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

"...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354078)

Senate: not now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354081)

you're being very obtuse here. the canning case clearly doesn't say "all adjournments are the same, doesn't matter if it's a minute or a year." and, even if it did, scotus would clarify that this could not be used to *completely subvert* democracy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354100)

mig. if there is *no* nuance in adjournment, do you think that means trump could adjourn the senate until the next senate is sworn in, and then keep the senate in adjournment up until he loses control of the house?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354174)

but to answer your question in good faith: it's not unconstitutional because it doesn't specify the number of days. it's unconstitutional because your interpretation would subvert most of the constitution.

if the drafters intended for there to be some ceasar-creating clause where potus had a mechanism for shutting down congress completely, it would be a bit more explicit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354277)

This isn't a presidential power. It's a power of the house to choose not to work. The president merely resolves the dispute in the only possible way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354288)

the house and senate are frequently not in session at the same time. the house could go home for a year so long as the senate approved it. that doesn't mean the house can *force* the senate to adjourn.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354298)

Just think, either chamber of Congress could also refuse to reconcile bills with the other chamber and not pass anything. It's almost like some of the framers wanted the legislature to be somewhat weak and ineffectual compared to the executive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354206)

unlike passing law, the senate exclusively has the power of advice and consent. it makes no sense that potus could subvert that power through the house even if 100/100 senators were voting not to confirm.

if the drafters intended for their to be a mechanism subvert the senate's consent power, it would be made more explicit. and if anyone thought that potus had this power it would have been used to appoint scotus justices.

this is as wacky as democrats thinking states can remove candidates from ballots because they engaged in an insurrection.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354267)

-mig, statutory interpretation and conlaw masterman

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354287)

are you asking if POTUS could do this in reality in 2024 or if he could do it in Mig's fantasy world of how things should be?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5636516&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=2755525",#48354302)