If * "recess appoints" Bolton, can Congress remove Bolton ?

[steve2470]

Just curious. I'm not optimistic Congress or the Dems. would have that much backbone.

[liberal N proud]

1. Not until the next session of Congress

At least that is what I understand.
If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Even if they could, do you think the repukes in the Senate would move to remove him? This is an easy way to get off the hook and then that can come back to the old story about Dem's are unfair and won't allow "ANY" of the chimps nominees an "UP or Down Vote"

[wakeme2008]

2. No but he gets NO Pay for it.

Congressional Rules :)

Also this would be great for the Dems,,, the first time he makes an ass of himself, even the Repugs in Congress will point out, Bolton was Forced on them...

[onenote]

5. not so...Bolton can be paid

There are a couple of circumstances where, by Statute, a recess appointee can't be paid, but Bolton's situation doesn't meet the test so he can be paid.

Here's everything you ever wanted to know about recess appointments:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf#search='recess%20appointments%20crs'

onenote

[ElectroPrincess]

3. I can't believe our illustrious "free press" doesn't examine

the UNDERHANDEDNESS of such an (Recess) appointment?!?

All CNN said is that "it would leave the door open for ..." :wtf:

WHY must the * Administration have its way on EVERYTHING?

WE have a Corporate USA Media. These bastards are shameless. The tripe they choose to cover gives me the impression that they consider the American people stupid. I hope and pray that we prove them wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. It is a huge embarassment for their side.

Assuming we stay on target, we've won this one. F the corporate media and its craven shills. F the talking head clones. The opposition party actually acted like an opposition party. It feels good. The pink tutu dlc crowd needs to get used to it.

[radfringe]

6. no

What is a recess appointment?

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to:

Nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, . . . appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

Under normal circumstances, when a vacancy occurs in one of these posts, the President nominates an individual to fill the position and the Senate then votes to either confirm or reject the President's nominee. However, the Framers anticipated that vacancies would occur while the Senate was not in session. The Constitution provides that (also in Article II, Section 2):

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.

While this provision is fairly straightforward, it has produced several differences of opinion between the Congress and the President. How many days must the Senate fail to convene for it to lapse into a recess? Does a position have to become vacant during a Senate recess for a valid recess appointment to be made or does the position simply have to remain vacant during the recess?

Instead of allowing the Court to settle these disputes, the Congress and the President have generally agreed to work together to solve them. This makes sense because neither side has a particularly clear interest in forcing the issue. If the President tries to force recess appointments on the Senate, thus circumventing the normal "advice and consent" process, the Congress can refuse to appropriate funds to pay the salaries of the appointees. The Senate might also take the extraordinary measure of blocking future nominations to "teach the President a lesson." Furthermore, if the Senate took a hostile approach to all recess appointments, it would essentially have to remain in session all of the time--an inefficient solution, to say the least.

Currently, the President and Congress generally adhere to a procedure for recess appointments that minimizes the potential for interbranch conflict. If the President wishes to make a recess appointment or appointments, he generally sends a list of persons to be appointed to members of the Senate shortly before or during a recess. If Senators express serious concerns about a nominee, the President will likely hold off on the appointment until the Senate is back in session and the normal procedure can be followed.


=============

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf">What Happens If the Nomination of Someone Holding a RecessAppointment Is Rejected by the Senate? PDF FILE

Rejection by the Senate does not end the recess appointment. Payment to the appointee may be prevented, however, by a recurring provision of the Transportation,Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act. The provision reads, “No part of any appropriation for the current fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid to any person for the filling of any position for which he or she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination of said person.” This provision has been part of this annual funding activity for at least 50 years. As a practical matter, nominations are rarely rejected by a vote of the full Senate.

=============

another article mentions dragging in the court system to remove someone who was appointed during a congressional recess...

briefly - once a recess appointment has been made, that person is "in" until the next congressional session (in Bolt-zilla's case - until January 2007). Congress can withhold pay (see above), but can't remove the person directly.

For Congress to "remove" someone (be it a recess appointment or not) there would have to be an "impeachable" offense

to prevent a "recess appointment" from occuring - Congress would have to remain in session for an indefinite period of time or until the "nominee's name" is taken off the table.

the last alternative would be to force the person to resign via back-door pressure and poltical manuvering