Why'd They Do That?

We all know that on Monday, President Bush did an end run around the Senate known as a "recess appointment". In that case, he used it, contemptuously, to install at the United Nations arguably the least appropriate person ever to be our ambassador there. Yesterday, with slightly less fanfare, he used the power again. It is worth asking where that power came from. Unlike many of the acts of government, this particular one comes straight from the United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 3.

What isn't so obvious is: why did they word it that way? The phrasing clearly dictates that such recess appointments will end at the conclusion of the current Congress. In this case, that means in January, 2007. One can do a quick search of documents related to the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention, and determine that the original idea had been to have appointments made by the Senate, itself, but that compromises were reached intended to limit the power of the Senate. Ain't that a yuck? But I haven't located any reference to discussions about the specific wording of this clause. Clearly, they could have limited recess appointments to the time during which the Senate was in recess. Possibly (and this is just speculation), it was considered that many appointments, like ambassadors, would be outside the United States, and given the available transportation of the time, it would be impractical to call them back only a month or two later.

There's a lot of scholarship out there. So, who knows the answer? Who can do a better google search? Inquiring minds want to know.

DEMOPHOENIX