doughr at udallas.edu
Mon Jan 19 12:12:11 PST 2004
Is the question of the "technicality" of the constitutionality of the appointment a matter of interest to anyone who is not an "originalist"? That's not meant as a rhetorical question.
William Mayton wrote:
> As regards whether G. Washington was looking to a long recess when he appointed Rutledge: For the first ten sessions of Congress inter-session recesses averaged seven months in length. The anticipation of those long recesses seems to have been the motivation for the recess appointments clause. At the constutional convention and immediately after agreement respecting the appointments clause and its advice and consent proviso was reached, Richard Dobbs Spaight moved that the recess appts clause be added. That motion was agreed to without recorded debate.
> After the convention, in Fed. 67 and in what seems the only significant public comment on the recess apts clause, A. Hamilton noted that it "as vacancies might happen during their recess, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill up without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, singly, to make temporary appointments."
> Bill Mayton
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
More information about the Conlawprof