Reps threaten retribution for non-recess appointments... as soon as they return from recess.

[davidm]

“House Republicans File Resolution Criticizing Recess Picks”

House Republicans File Resolution Criticizing Recess Picks - Roll Call

Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.) and 71 other House Republicans introduced a nonbinding resolution today voicing concern over President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of four administration nominees last week.
“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”

(My emphasis)

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in this?

Representative Black, if you aren’t in recess, than you and your colleagues should get your butts back to Washington now, and do your jobs. Otherwise, you’re in a de facto recess.

(Yes, I know that Democrats have also use pro forma recesses and no, I am not defending that either.)

[Zebra]

Only the Senate has to be in session. Not the house.

[davidm]

@Zebra

Only the Senate has to be in session. Not the house.

Neither is actually in session.

[alphaboi867]

Unless Obama needs to replace Joe Biden nobody in the House has any say or role in confirming appointments.

[Alley_Dweller]

@Zebra

Only the Senate has to be in session. Not the house.

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution says:
“Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

[Jophiel]

Oh golly. Not a nonbinding resolution!

[Little_Nemo]

Yes, the Republicans definitely want to make an issue out of this. Because there’s no possible way they could come off looking like the unreasonable ones here.

[Zebra]

@Alley_Dweller

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution says:
“Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

The Senate is holding pro-forma sessions. The House adjourned and I imagined that the Senate approved of that. So the fact that the House is not in session does not mean the guy is being contradictory.

He is being an ass but not contradictory.

[John_Mace]

Civics 101…

The House is in recess. But the House neither advises nor consents on presidential appointees.

The senate is not in recess. They are the ones that the president needs advice and consent from.

One Representative, quoted in the OP, wants to introduce a resolution condemning what Obama has done once the House is back in session. This is perfectly within the bounds of what the House can do, and there is some justification for doing so since there is no precedent to what Obama has done.

I know it’s confusing to keep track of two different chambers of Congress, but you need to do that in order to understand what’s going on.

So, is the OP ready to admit to an error and to retract the charge of “contradiction”?