Paul Saunders Web Forum Series

The Constitution Project  is proud to launch a new interactive forum for expert opinion and debate on the constitutional issues of our day.  The “Paul Saunders Web Forum Series” is named for Paul Saunders, a member of TCP’s board of directors from 1999 to 2011, and its chair from 1999-2006. Paul Saunders TCP is grateful to Paul for his many years of service to the organization and for his unwavering commitment to casting aside the labels that divide us to protect the principles and spirit of the nation’s founding charter.

Web Forum #2: Take Care Clause

We are now accepting submissions for an online discussion centered on the Take Care Clause. The Take Care Clause, sometimes called the Faithful Execution Clause, is the constitutional requirement (in Article II, Section 3) that presidents take care that the laws are faithfully executed, even if they disagree with the purpose of those laws. It is best read as a duty that constrains executive branch power.

The House Judiciary Committee is considering legislation, H.R. 3857 (Enforce the Take Care Clause Act), to authorize the House and the Senate to bring an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for various types of presidential actions considered in violation of the Take Care Clause. In keeping with the spirit of Constitution Project dialogues, we invite thoughtful, nonpartisan participation from a variety of perspectives on this legislation.

We invite responses to this legislation, as well as to other questions and comments that the participants in this discussion believe should be raised. Please click on the button below to fill out a form that will submit your contribution or email your contribution as an attachment to Sarah McLean, Communications Coordinator at TCP, at smclean@constitutionproject.org.

webforumform_btn

Forum Entries
Web Forum #1: Recess Appointments Clause

We are no longer accepting submissions for an online discussion centered upon Noel Canning, the Recess Appointments Clause.

The focus of the discussion began with the litigation about the constitutionality of three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board on January 4, 2012 but extended more broadly to the roles of the Congress, the President, and the Court in resolving separation of powers disputes.

Forum Entries

Synopsis: The Supreme Court is being presented with an incomplete set of choices. The January 4, 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were made prior to the actual assembling of the House (on January 17, 2012) and Senate (on January 23, 2012) when a quorum of each was first present to begin the annual meeting of Congress within the meaning of the Twentieth Amendment. The January 4 recess appointments should be treated as valid appointments that if not identical to intersession appointments, which they may be, are at least constitutionally comparable to them. As such, they lasted for one year until the end of the second session of the 112th Congress on January 2, 2013, thus including the date, February 8, 2012, on which the NLRB issued the order under review. There is no need for the Court to decide either the question of intrasession versus intersession recess appointments or the impact of “pro forma” meetings on intrasession recesses.

Read the full post here.

  • Issue:
  • null
  • Sub-Issue:
  • null

Synopsis: The Supreme Court is being presented with an incomplete set of choices. The January 4, 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were made prior to the actual assembling of the House (on January 17, 2012) and Senate (on January 23, 2012) when a quorum of each was first present to begin the annual meeting of Congress within the meaning of the Twentieth Amendment. The January 4 recess appointments should be treated as valid appointments that if not identical to intersession appointments, which they may be, are at least constitutionally comparable to them. As such, they lasted for one year until the end of the second session of the 112th Congress on January 2, 2013, thus including the date, February 8, 2012, on which the NLRB issued the order under review. There is no need for the Court to decide either the question of intrasession versus intersession recess appointments or the impact of “pro forma” meetings on intrasession recesses.

Read the full post here.

  • Issue:
  • null
  • Sub-Issue:
  • null
Donate Now

Media Contacts

Christine Ostrosky
Media and Communications Assistant
202-347-1122
costrosky@pogo.org

Tim Farnsworth
Chief Communications Strategist
202-347-1122
tfarnsworth@pogo.org