Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution Interests Me.

[MineralMan]

It reads, with regard to the powers of the President:

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, 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; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The boldfaced portion is of most interest to me right now. Does anyone know how this part has been used in the past and whether it might be applied to today?

[PoliticAverse]

1. What's the point of conveneing them if they won't be coming to an agreement on a bill?

This 2003 document notes the times in history the president has convened Congress: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/ExtraSessions.pdf

Truman's use of the provision...
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Turnip_Day_Session.htm

[MineralMan]

6. Thank you. That's what I was looking for.

[2naSalit]

2. Good question!

I have to wonder at the threat level to the POTUS for actually executing certain portions of his powers by those who would destroy him by any means available.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The Constitution specifically gives the President the power to convene Congress, you think

Democrats are going to remove him from office for executing that power?

[2naSalit]

10. Actualy

that's not what I was referencing. I meant physical threat, iykwim.

I don't think the Dems would consider removal. And I wish he would use his powers more than he has on many issues of domestic interest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. What if they fail to appear?

[MineralMan]

9. That's an excellent question.

I have no answer.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Assuming that it's the Republicans in the House that don't appear resulting in

a lack of a quorum, the Democratic members present can then instruct the Sergeant at Arms to compel attendance
by absent members. The Sergeant at Arms has the power to do so by force (arrest).

http://www.house.gov/content/learn/officers_and_organizations/sergeant_at_arms.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

[Chan790]

21. I wonder if the Sgt. at Arms has ever had to actually do that? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

23. The Senate's Sergeant at Arms did arrest Senator Bob Packwood in 1988...

to compel his attendance, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/25/us/a-senator-is-captured-but-not-his-mind.html

[msanthrope]

17. Then we start passing shit like there's no tomorrow. nt

[MohRokTah]

4. So he can adjourn the Congress and say come back in a month.

And during the intervening time, he could make recess appointments.

But he can only do this if the House and Senate disagree about the adjournment, which constantly happens with this House and Senate.

[MineralMan]

8. Is there disagreement between the House and Senate right now

over their recess?

[MohRokTah]

15. There always seems to be.

Reid wants to recess, Boehner doesn't and holds pro forma sessions.

[Igel]

19. Sure.

He could adjourn them right after he's inaugurated. If there are elections and a new congress is seated, the chairman can gavel them into session, open the note from the President immediately declaring them adjourned to 11:59 pm of the last day of that Congress.

And for the next 4 years all his appointments could be whomever he wanted. In fact, if he ignored the laws entirely the house and senate wouldn't be able to file suit against him--they'd never be able to vote. If he does something that's a high crime or treasonous, he could adjourn them and immediately stop any chance of impeachment or trial. No budget? Issue an executive order. If it's not valid, who's going to have standing to challenge it?

Something tells me that there's some interpretation or rule of constructon saying that "adjournment" is not going to be considered a "recess" for many purposes of the constitution.

People who want more power for this president want more power for all presidents--meaning that the Legislature, Judicial, and electorate have commensurately less.

[MohRokTah]

20. "and in Case of Disagreement between them"

You forgot that part.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. This notion was already decided by the USSC when they vacated Obama's appointments

to the NLRB and voided any rules set during the time the illegitimate appointments were made.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Only if a Multi-National Corporation approves it first

[2naSalit]

12. DUzy!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

11. It's been done

But don't hold your breath...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Calling_Congress_into_extraordinary_session.3B_adjourning_Congress

[Shrike47]

16. The article on the Turnip Day session (link from the link) is interesting and inspiring.

Truman called Congress back into session to consider various issues he thought important. This was the Do Nothing Congress. They met, but the Republicans refused to pass anything. The author believes this helped Truman in the end, as voters reacted negatively to the Republican intransigence.

All Congress wants to do right now is run for re-election. Perfect time to call them in to session.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Truman was OK with confrontation

He was not above the fray.

[davidn3600]

13. Sort of the same thing where many governors can call for a "special session"

It's sort of the same kind of thing.

If there is a dire situation or a pressing issue that must be resolved in a timely manner, the President can reconvene Congress.

Congress would still need to approve anything he proposes though.