Adopt A Box O’ Docs Part II: Roberts vs. Byrd
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/Box47JGRRecessAppointments4.pdf
Though we have not been given the go-ahead yet, we decided to jump on the next box of documents concerning Judge Roberts and recess appointments. This box has only thirteen pages in it, as opposed to the one last night which had twenty-six pages. And this one is clear and concise from the word go. Sen. Robert Byrd did not want President Reagan making any recess appointments in August of 1985 because, according to Sen. Byrd, such appointments should only be made during times of "protracted recess."
The very first page of this box references Byrd’s letter to Pres. Reagan, and is directly cc’d to Judge Roberts. As a matter of fact, most are cc’d to Judge Roberts concerning this issue. This could be because he was essential in rebutting the "deficiency" in Sen. Byrd’s understanding of the powers of the president to propose recess appointments. There is no time limit involved. There is no reason why his powers should be curtailed. This was made clear by those asked to answer the senator’s bird-brained ideas that an enumerated power should be kept in check.
The memos/letters are written by the following people: Richard A. Hauser, Deputy Counsel to the President; M. B. Oglesby, Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs; John G. Roberts; M. B. Oglesby (again); Sen. Robert Byrd; Richard A. Hauser (again); (The next one is a simple statement from the President regarding recess appointments); John G. Roberts (which is little more than a cover sheet explaining the contents of the file.)
There is nothing within this box that has any contention regarding Judge Roberts. He is interpreting—properly, mind you—the powers of the president to make recess appointments. Thus far in our research of both boxes, he is on the side of the Constitution. Article II, Sect. 2, Cl. 3 is continually cited in these documents. Not because they are being redundant, but because some people fail to see that the president has enumerated powers that can’t be trumped by legislation (as yesterday’s post provided), nor can it be curtailed because the Senate wishes it to be so.
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." This is what Art. II, Sect. 2, Clause 3 states precisely. There are no other additions to this regarding what legislation may be enacted, or any particular time frame. Actually, I sit corrected; the time frame is explained: "that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." Sen. Byrd’s argument not only makes no sense, but it it constitutionally deficient within its reasoning.
Judge Roberts states, in his first memo out of this box, that "[Senator Byrd’s] view has been rejected by the courts, and I think that we should let the court opinions do most of the talking." He is correct. The senator from West Virginia had no legs to stand on with this issue. Again, as we agreed last night, if any point of contention arises on this particular subject by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, it will be out of hurt pride. Sen. Byrd is one of the most notable senators in their party, and much like Sen. Packwood in the previous box we covered yesterday, he slammed the door on him. Pride will be the Democrat’s downfall if they choose to pick a fight on this issue.
The Bunny & Publius II
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/Box47JGRRecessAppointments4.pdf
Though we have not been given the go-ahead yet, we decided to jump on the next box of documents concerning Judge Roberts and recess appointments. This box has only thirteen pages in it, as opposed to the one last night which had twenty-six pages. And this one is clear and concise from the word go. Sen. Robert Byrd did not want President Reagan making any recess appointments in August of 1985 because, according to Sen. Byrd, such appointments should only be made during times of "protracted recess."
The very first page of this box references Byrd’s letter to Pres. Reagan, and is directly cc’d to Judge Roberts. As a matter of fact, most are cc’d to Judge Roberts concerning this issue. This could be because he was essential in rebutting the "deficiency" in Sen. Byrd’s understanding of the powers of the president to propose recess appointments. There is no time limit involved. There is no reason why his powers should be curtailed. This was made clear by those asked to answer the senator’s bird-brained ideas that an enumerated power should be kept in check.
The memos/letters are written by the following people: Richard A. Hauser, Deputy Counsel to the President; M. B. Oglesby, Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs; John G. Roberts; M. B. Oglesby (again); Sen. Robert Byrd; Richard A. Hauser (again); (The next one is a simple statement from the President regarding recess appointments); John G. Roberts (which is little more than a cover sheet explaining the contents of the file.)
There is nothing within this box that has any contention regarding Judge Roberts. He is interpreting—properly, mind you—the powers of the president to make recess appointments. Thus far in our research of both boxes, he is on the side of the Constitution. Article II, Sect. 2, Cl. 3 is continually cited in these documents. Not because they are being redundant, but because some people fail to see that the president has enumerated powers that can’t be trumped by legislation (as yesterday’s post provided), nor can it be curtailed because the Senate wishes it to be so.
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." This is what Art. II, Sect. 2, Clause 3 states precisely. There are no other additions to this regarding what legislation may be enacted, or any particular time frame. Actually, I sit corrected; the time frame is explained: "that may happen during the Recess of the Senate." Sen. Byrd’s argument not only makes no sense, but it it constitutionally deficient within its reasoning.
Judge Roberts states, in his first memo out of this box, that "[Senator Byrd’s] view has been rejected by the courts, and I think that we should let the court opinions do most of the talking." He is correct. The senator from West Virginia had no legs to stand on with this issue. Again, as we agreed last night, if any point of contention arises on this particular subject by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, it will be out of hurt pride. Sen. Byrd is one of the most notable senators in their party, and much like Sen. Packwood in the previous box we covered yesterday, he slammed the door on him. Pride will be the Democrat’s downfall if they choose to pick a fight on this issue.
The Bunny & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home