![image.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmYN5HNaKbSsCVys9ME9QXERutC5wvaTVt31N8WHbuGtes/image.png)



The Constitution requires the chambers of Congress to agree with each other on adjournment, and if either chamber recesses for more than three days it must get the others’ agreement to that (which is normally pro forma). 

If the chambers cannot agree on a recess date, the {resident can choose one. But this is less a power than a restriction – it’s the only situation in which the President can adjourn Congress; he can’t do it just to get it out of his way.

Presidents can make recess appointments, but that power is anachronistic and now abused. Congress did not originally meet year round, and could not be quickly reconvened given the pace of travel in the late 18th century. So in case an important official died while Congress was not in session, Presidents were constitutionally authorized to appoint someone without Senate approval to hold the office until the end of the next session of Congress.

Congress does meet year round now, so there are no such lengthy periods of recess that a recess appointment would be necessary. But the power is there, so Presidents will use it. If the Senate is unwilling to approve a nominee, wait until Congress is in recess, and then appoint the person. It’s within the rules of the game, but against the spirit, and is an example of Presidents trying to avoid constitutional checks and balances.

To prevent presidents from doing this, both chambers increasingly avoid adjourning or recessing. They leave behind a token few legislators to gavel the chamber into session each day, announce that there is no business, and gavel it out. Trump called this a sham, and he’s right about that, but it’s a sham forced by Presidents’ abuse of the recess appointment power.

Obama decided that a three-day break between these pro forma sessions (Jan. 3-6, 2012) was a sufficient break to allow him to do recess appointments. When an action of the National Labor Relations Board was challenged in Court on the basis that three of the five commissioners had been illegitimately appointed, the Supreme Court ruled against Obama 9-0 (NLRB v. Canning, 2014). Obama’s action was clearly contradictory to the spirt of the recess appointment authority, and Justice Breyer, writing for the Court, emphasized the danger to our system of checks and balances.

> *“A broad interpretation might permit a President to avoid Senate confirmations as a matter of course. If the Clause gives the President the power to ‘fill up all vacancies’ that occur before, and continue to exist during, the Senate’s recess, a President might not submit any nominations to the Senate. He might simply wait for a recess and then provide all potential nominees with recess appointments. He might thereby routinely avoid the constitutional need to obtain the Senate’s ‘advice and consent.’”*

And the overall thrust of the Court’s ruling was that barring extraordinary circumstances Congress determines whether it’s in session, not the President. This is absolutely crucial to maintaining a republican, non-dictatorial political regime. 

Trump also violates the spirit of the recess rule. He asks the Senate to get out of the way so that he can have his way, as though demanding a recess just so he can have the appointments he wants is legitimate process. He makes the argument that the Senate should do this because they are violating their duty to vote on his appointees, but that is an empty argument since his waterboy McConnell refused to hold any vote on Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee. But he is not violating the letter of the rule. Obama did, and Trump’s advisors know it. That’s why he’s reduced to pleading with the Senate instead of just acting unilaterally, as his predecessor did.