When you launch a
new idea, its very newness puts it outside of the mainstream. Back in 2007, in an
academic article, recess appointments were one of the issues du jour. I wrote
that if a President made a recess appointment, a determined Senate could kill
the appointment by ending its current session and immediately starting a new
one (or by doing so twice, in the case of an intra-session recess appointment). See Seth Barrett Tillman, Senate Termination of Presidential Recess Appointments,
101 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 82
(2007), https://ssrn.com/abstract=956164 (the first part of a four-part
Tillman-Kalt exchange).
I admit that the
idea was a bit novel—but it does follow from the text of the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause.
One student note called my “innovation[] … at once both plausible and absurd ….”
David Frisof, Note, Plausible Absurdities
and Practical Formalities: The Recess Appointments Clause in Theory and
Practice, 112 Mich. L. Rev.
627, 643 (2014).
Two years later,
in 2016, what was absurd is now standard fare.
All that the [Republican majority] Senate would need
to do [to terminate a purported recess appointment by President Obama of Judge
Garland to the Supreme Court] is end its next session by adjourning sine die and Garland’s term would end.
This is because, under the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, such
appointments terminate at the end of the next Senate session. Adjourning sine die would require the cooperation
of the House and a president’s signature, but that would be no obstacle come
Jan. 20. In other words, Congress could terminate any recess appointment made
by Obama in less than three weeks.
Jonathan H. Adler,
The real reason President Obama won’t
recess-appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, The Washington Post—The Volokh Conspiracy (Dec. 29, 2016,
7:15 PM), http://tinyurl.com/jljwrrm.
Back
in 2008, I argued that slight differences in the Constitution’s “office”
terminology may have been meaningful back in 1788. I tentatively suggested in a
footnote that: “Perhaps the President is not an officer at all, rather,
the President is an official, a magistrate, an officeholder,
or the holder of an Article VI public trust?” Seth Barrett Tillman, Why Our Next President May Keep
His or Her Senate Seat: A Conjecture on the Constitution’s Incompatibility
Clause, 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar 1,
2 n.4 (2008).
One
student note responded:
Th[e]
[Constitution’s text] would also imply that the President himself is an
“officer of the United States.” See Black’s Law Dictionary 1117 (8th ed.
2004) (defining an “officer” as “[a] person who holds an office of trust,
authority, or command”). But see
Tillman, supra note 10, at 10–12 (arguing
that the president is not an “officer” and distinguishing between an “officer”
and an “officeholder”).
For an
example of drawing out numerous minor textual differences without any
meaningful distinctions, see Tillman, supra note 10, at 10–12. Tillman relies on such differences to
attempt to show that the President is an officeholder, but not an officer. Id.
David
J. Shaw, Note, An Officer and a
Congressman: The Unconstitutionality of Congressmen in the Armed Forces Reserve,
97 Geo. L.J. 1739, 1743 nn.19–20
(2009) (bold added). More recently, I came across an unpublished
Scalia-authored OLC memorandum. Scalia wrote: “[W]hen the word ‘officer’ is
used in the Constitution, it invariably refers to someone other
than the President or Vice President.” Memorandum to Honorable
Kenneth A. Lazarus, Asso. Counsel to the President, from Antonin Scalia, Asst
Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Applicability of 3 C.F.R. Part 100 to
the President and Vice President, at 2 (Dec. 19, 1974) (bold added), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2889011.
So
you can shift the Overton window in the legal world, but it takes about 8 years
and a good bit of luck (such as a “fortunate constellation of facts” [per
Rumpole] which focuses a lot of attention on your issue or the discovery of
missing authority).
Seth
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SethBTillman ( @SethBTillman )
My prior post: Seth Barrett Tillman, Ed
Kilgore’s Recess Appointments Strategy Won’t Work & This Is Why, The New
Reform Club (Dec. 29, 2016, 2:48 AM). [here]
2 comments:
Eventually they all come to poppa. Good thing you were prepared for these torturings of the constitution. The only limit is our imaginations. Esp in this sophistic legal age, where the letter of the law is all we have left, the spirit long gone. [For example, the amendment that ensured the equality of ex-slaves now turns boys into girls.]
Did you know you can create short links with LinkShrink and receive money for every click on your shortened links.
Post a Comment