A recent court decision has slowed—dare we hope, stopped?—the erosion of an important check on executive power. This is the constitutional provision that the president’s appointment of certain high officials be subject to Senate approval.
Trevor Burrus of the Cato Institute reminds us that presidents have sought to circumvent the advise and consent requirement since the days of Warren Harding.
The Constitution enables the president to make appointments when the Senate is in recess, i.e., between sessions. (In the days of the Founders, that hiatus lasted many months.) Starting with Harding, though, presidents began making appointments during so-called intra-session “recesses,” or breaks within a regular session. These “recesses” were as brief as ten days by the time we got to Clinton and Bush II.
In 2007, the Senate began conducting brief pro forma sessions within these “recesses” to prevent appointments from being made without its consent. Last year, President Obama counter-moved by declaring that he had authority to determine what constitutes a session. On this basis he made several appointments sans the Senate’s consent.
The DC Court of Appeals has now ruled the maneuver unconstitutional. “The power of a written constitution lies in its words,” writes Chief Judge David Sentelle. “When those words speak clearly, it is not up to us to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency, convenience, or facilitation of the functions of government.”
Do presidents sometimes find the Constitution inconvenient? Too bad.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.