In looking into the whole Bolton possible recess appointment, I came across several items that caught my attention. The fact that within the Constitution, it is noted that recess appointments are supposed to be used for when vacancies come up during a Congressional break, not for stalled nominations or nominations that have been filibustered and the President wants to get through. So how and why did this change over the past years?? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Probably as simple as the rules don't stipluate that otherswise.

Probably as simple as the rules don't stipluate that otherswise.

Yeah, I guess reading further into it, the interpretation of "happen" within the clause means "happen during recess" or "happen to exist" during the time of the recess. So I guess AGs have intrepreted it different ways. What would a strict Constitutionalist, such as Bush proclaims to be, say about it I guess?

The fact that within the Constitution, it is noted that recess appointments are supposed to be used for when vacancies come up during a Congressional break, not for stalled nominations or nominations that have been filibustered and the President wants to get through.

Article II, 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."

There is a vacancy during the recess of the Senate, the Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to fill it. The Constitution makes no mention of what sort of candidates are "supposed" to be nominated in such circumstances. Only that the President has the power to make such appointments. The Constitution makes no mention of fillibustered candidates, stalled nominations, etc.; but the framers certainly would have known (given that Congress was in recess for long periods in those years) that this clause would give the President the power to appoint somebody without the advice and consent of the Senate (and explicitly limits the person's term as a result).

Sounds that way to me also. Gee, it's too bad you won't know that because you don't read my posts :D

Article II, 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."

There is a vacancy during the recess of the Senate, the Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to fill it. The Constitution makes no mention of what sort of candidates are "supposed" to be nominated in such circumstances. Only that the President has the power to make such appointments. The Constitution makes no mention of fillibustered candidates, stalled nominations, etc.; but the framers certainly would have known (given that Congress was in recess for long periods in those years) that this clause would give the President the power to appoint somebody without the advice and consent of the Senate (and explicitly limits the person's term as a result).

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate" This means to me that the vacancy would have to occur DURING the recess, not already be vacant before the recess.

I'd still read that clause as implying that the vacancy comes up during the recess and can be filled w/o approval due to emergency--not that it's a pass-go card to last ditch appoint stalled appointees.

Article II, 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."

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate" This means to me that the vacancy would have to occur DURING the recess, not already be vacant before the recess.

That's a good question, and I think it takes somebody with a background in 18th century English to know the answer. I really can't say whether "may happen" would have been written as a strictly present-tense thing, or would also mean "may happen to exist". But I find it hard to believe they wanted a strict constructionist view on this - I would say their intent is to get the position filled ASAP, not to hold it open indefinitely until the Senate comes back from recess.

And I think the fact that they limit the term to that of the current Congress (rather than lifetime, as a judge would have), shows that they expected this process to be used as an avoidence of advice and consent.

That's a good question, and I think it takes somebody with a background in 18th century English to know the answer. I really can't say whether "may happen" would have been written as a strictly present-tense thing, or would also mean "may happen to exist". But I find it hard to believe they wanted a strict constructionist view on this - I would say their intent is to get the position filled ASAP, not to hold it open indefinitely until the Senate comes back from recess.

And I think the fact that they limit the term to that of the current Congress (rather than lifetime, as a judge would have), shows that they expected this process to be used as an avoidence of advice and consent.
Appointments weren't all this contentious then and Senators didn't live in Washington, it was a part time job. Travel was more time consuming and communication much more difficult. I would lean toward the meaning being vacancies that occured while Congres was adjourned.