re: If Trump exercises Article II, Section 3, do you think McConnell will sue?

The problem with this scenario is that it appears you are actually going to need both the Senate and the House to go along with Trump, otherwise there will be no "disagreement" as the Constitution requires.

So, the House approves a Resolution adjourning on Jan 21, 2025, for instance. Then you will need the Senate to approve a Resolution adjourning on Feb. 10, 2025 or something like that. Anything to create an actual disagreement on the time of adjournment.

Will Thune be on board. Can he sell it to members who do not want to be on record supporting a particular nominee but will be okay with the bypass of the Senate in this way?

quote:

---

The problem with this scenario is that it appears you are actually going to need both the Senate and the House to go along with Trump, otherwise there will be no "disagreement" as the Constitution requires.

So, the House approves a Resolution adjourning on Jan 21, 2025, for instance. Then you will need the Senate to approve a Resolution adjourning on Feb. 10, 2025 or something like that. Anything to create an actual disagreement on the time of adjournment.

---

I'm not following your logic. If there's no disagreement then they simply adjourn and go into recess, allowing the recess appointments.

quote:

---

The language seems pretty straight forward but I'm surprised that these forced recesses haven't been used more often.

---

They have, look at when Clinton was in office.

quote:

---

The requirement is that there be disagreement.

---

But again, how is this required? With no disagreement they simply go to recess.

I am saying that the Constitution requires that there be a disagreement with respect to the time of adjournment between the two houses in order for the President to force adjournment.

So, presumably the scenario would be for the House to pass a resolution adjourning the House on day x.
If the Senate does nothing, then there is no disagreement. So, the Senate would have to pass a resolution of adjournment on a time different from x. Which means you would have to get a majority of Senators to agree with the scheme (it would be obvious what is happening).

I do not see how inaction on the time of adjournment would constitute a disagreement. Otherwise, the President could adjourn both houses the minute after either one voted on a time to adjourn since the other had not acted.

quote:

---

Go read, Obama used these quite often.

As a matter of fact, my most Liberal friend who is also my best friend did not even begin to argue Trumps use of this because he would have not ground to stand on because of Barry.

Hes starting to get the picture now

---

Obama made fewer recess appointments than Clinton or Bush by a significant margin. He nor Clinton or W used recess appointments to appoint a head of a department. Out of Obama, W, and Clinton only one recess appointment was made in the first year of any of their terms. That lone appointment was by W.

There was an issue with how Obama made a few recess appointments. They were challenged in court and overturned.

I hope he does. Trump wants a fight on the Senate confirmation process for a reason. There is no constitutional basis for the Senate to hold formal approval proceedings in their current form.

The "Senate approval hearing" process you currently know only began in the 1980s.

There is a separation of powers for a reason. Half of the Legislative Branch cannot hold the Executive hostage in this manner because they do not agree with the policies of the WH.

quote:

---

Mike Johnson needs 218 out of 222? to support him in order for this to happen. And if it happens SCOTUS will almost certainly overrule it, as they should; it being a blatant attempt to subvert the constitutionally required duty of the Senate to advise and consent.

---

You are asking the Supreme Court to take a case that they have no legal standing to take.......and then over rule the Constitution of the United States?????

"legal scholars or 51 intel agencies" say we will take it to the supreme court.

Translation "you just wait til daddy gets home". The supreme court is called supreme for a reason, not to explain the constitution to 8th graders.

quote:

---

There's really no other sensible way to see it. If the House moves to adjourn and the Senate refuses to even address the issue that is most definitely a disagreement. One side or the other might need a court decision to set a time frame before the President can force their hand but I don't think even the Dems would try your ridiculous claim of no disagreement via inaction. Much less the GOPe who are well aware that their voters will side with Trump.

---

I disagree. The Constitution says

quote:

---

in Case of Disagreement between [the House and Senate], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.

---

The important phrase is "time of adjournment". The disagreement cannot be over whether to adjourn or not but rather the time. If the House passes a resolution to adjourn and the Senate does nothing, then there is no disagreement over the time of adjournment. I guess you could craft a disagreement over whether to adjourn at all, but that is not enough to trigger the President's power - which can only happen if the chambers actually disagree on the time of adjournment.