Recess appointments--a possible logical story

[James Lindgren]

Knowing virtually nothing about Con Law, I had somewhat similar logical first
impressions to Mark's.

Did "session" in 1787 mean what it does today?

One Possible Story:
A logical way to have designed a provision (though not necessarily what they
did) would be to allow recess appointments until Congress had a chance to
consider confirmation.  Thus when Congress convenes again after a recess, it
has a chance to vote on the nomination.  If they adjourn again without voting
on the recess appointment, the job then terminates (sort of like a pocket
veto).  One must remember that with travel of the day, it made more sense to
convene for one period and then to be in recess for a period (I do not know
what they actually did), when all could travel home.  If my story were true
and that was how the provision was interpreted today, Congress could meet for
one day and adjourn--thereby ending a recess appointment--so there is some
logic today in having a longer view of session than just the time between
reconvening and adjourning for a recess.

But an appointment lasting only until the next recess might have seemed most
logical to them.
Someone might actually have to do some historical research.

Jim Lindgren
Northwestern