• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

February 7, 2013|Recess Appointments

The Modern Recess Appointment Tradition is Not Valuable

by Mike Rappaport|2 Comments

I hate to seem like a one trick pony, but this another post on the Recess Appointments Clause.  It is prompted by my co-blogger Mike Greve’s post in defense of the modern practice on recess appointments.  Mike writes:

I do think important interests are at stake . . .  The Constitution sets up rival, competing institutions—and, as a practical matter, compels them to cooperate. Sometimes, it prescribes the mode: bicameral approval, presentment (veto, override).  On a million other things, it does not. When coordination problems prove recurrent, the institutions will work out some mutually acceptable practice. Some practices shift and change over time; others become deeply entrenched. But so long as they work tolerably well and don’t violate the Constitution more or less plainly (and yes, that’s a matter of judgment), it’s rarely a good idea to upset them. The practice serves some institutional function and demand. When it’s  ruled out of bounds the institutions will have to find some other coordination mechanism. That’s always costly. It may be unsuccessful. And it may well be worse than what went before. Before running those risks (in the name of originalism or for other reasons), we should make quite sure that we’ve got it right.

This is an important objection – and it is held by many people – but I believe it is mistaken.  It is worth pointing out why.

There is, of course, a formal – that is, originalist – response to Mike’s point (which he references when he says the practice doesn’t “violate the Constitution more or less plainly).  If one looks at the D.C.’s opinion (and even more persuasively, if you will permit me to say it, my article), I think it is plain that the modern practice is unconstitutional.

But there is also a functional – that is, a public policy – response to Mike’s defense of the practice.  Mike makes the conservative point that the existing practice, no doubt, serves important interests of the different branches – we just don’t know exactly what they are.  But they were worked out by the beneficial process of adjustment and coordination.

Scholars have analyzed this process of mutual adjustment in the separation of powers context.  They have analyzed it in terms of the Coase Theorem.  If the initial assignment of powers is inferior from the different branches’s perspective, then they will enter into an implicit contract that rearranges the assignment to their mutual benefit.  Based on the Coase Theorem, the new arrangement will leave the different branches better off.  So what is the harm?

The problem is that the different branches are not the only ones affected by this deal.  There is also a third party – the people – who are potentially harmed by it.

In the case of the recess appointment tradition, one might infer that the Senate has traded its power of advice and consent to the President in exchange for something else.  We don’t really know what it gets in return.  One possibility is that the Senators don’t have to make difficult votes on controversial nominees that might harm them politically.  After all, the Congress often delegates power when they want to avoid responsibility.  In the modern era of minority party filibustering of nominations, the recess appointment power may allow the Senate to avoid having to engage in a divisive debate about filibuster reform, which might leave the filibuster weaker and individual Senators less powerful.

Notice, though, that these trades benefit the Senators but do not provide obvious benefits to the people or the republic.  But in all cases what the trade does is to undermine an important check – the constitutional requirement that Senate decide on whether officers should be appointed.

The bottom line is that there is not a good reason to believe that the practice of recess appointments serves the republic and quite a few reasons to think it does not.  By striking down that practice, the courts can help to force the Senate to serve its job as a check on potentially abusive executive power.

Mike Rappaport

Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism. Professor Rappaport is the author of numerous law review articles in journals such as the Yale Law Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. His book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which is co-authored with John McGinnis, was published by the Harvard University Press in 2013.  Professor Rappaport is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he received a JD and a DCL (Law and Political Theory).

About the Author

Medicaid Once More: Can We Please Get Serious?
Friday Roundup, February 8th

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Academic Freedom Won't Survive Carnival Act Universities April 25, 2018
  • Trump's Travel Ban and the Constitution April 24, 2018
  • Constitutional Amendment as a Path to Avoiding Robed Masters April 24, 2018
  • Founding Financial Father April 23, 2018
  • Pope Francis's Mess April 24, 2018
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. Daniel J. Artz says

    February 7, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Amen! The whole point of creating checks and balances in the Constitution was not to throw the different branches into the arena for the purpose of sport, or allow them to work out their differences in a manner which they found mutually beneficial. It was to protect We the People from a Government cursed, like all governments are, with an insatiable appetite for power. Requiring Presidential appointments to be confirmed by the Senate created a check on an Executive Branch looking (as it always is) for ways to enlarge its scope of influence. Expanding the Recess Appointment clause to go far beyond the safety valve for emergencies that it was intended to be seriously dilutes this check on Executive power, at the expense of the People.

    Reply
  2. Jason Taylor says

    February 12, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Well said. I’d simply the argument even further: The dissent’s position, that the public was getting cheated in the past, so we should allow them to get cheated in the future, is disrespectful to past citizens (pretending it was always ok), present citizens (who took time to study who to vote for), and the infinite unborn citizens otherwise forced to endure the potential injustice caused by congress not watching the executive branch in the fashion advertised by the constitution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

The Ford Restoration

by Kirk Emmert

Occupying the White House in unfavorable circumstances can make a President fall back on his best friend: the U.S. Constitution.

Read More

John C. Calhoun, Madisonian Manqué

by Thomas W. Merrill

His institutional innovations were geared toward preserving slavery.

Read More

Podcasts

The Solid Ground of Mere Civility: A Conversation with Teresa Bejan

A discussion with Teresa M. Bejan

Teresa Bejan discusses with us how early modern debates over religious toleration are an example of how we can disagree well.

Read More

Leading a Worthy Life in a Scattered Time: A Conversation with Leon Kass

A discussion with Leon Kass

Leon Kass discusses Leading a Worthy Life.

Read More

Eric Voegelin Studies: A Conversation with Charles Embry

A discussion with Charles Embry

What did “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” really mean? An intro podcast on the formidable mind of Eric Voegelin.

Read More

Republican Virtue, Interrupted: A Conversation with Frank Buckley

A discussion with F.H. Buckley

The real conflict in our politics centers on reforming massive levels of public corruption.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Academic Freedom Won’t Survive Carnival Act Universities

    Public institutions of supposedly liberal learning, which are increasingly alienating mainstream Americans, have no entitlement to public support.
    by Greg Weiner

  • Constitutional Amendment as a Path to Avoiding Robed Masters

    Tocqueville gives us good reasons to think that constitutional amendment is the best path to avoiding judicial supremacy.
    by James R. Rogers

  • Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Strategy

    Defending the entire free world requires a robust nuclear posture.
    by Matthew Kroenig

  • Pope Francis’s Mess

    Pope Francis has succeeded in making a mess for his Church.
    by Paul Seaton

  • Trump’s Travel Ban and the Constitution

    If the Supreme Court were to accept the plaintiffs' logic in Trump v. Hawaii, the judicial branch will gain new powers over defense policy.
    by Thomas Ascik

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks