Those things are expressly stated in the Constitution.
Pocket veto: Article I, Section 7: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unltess the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
Recess appointments: Article II, Sec 2: “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.”
In those instances the President is operating within express parameters given by the Constitution. To be comparable to the idea of Congress being able to reject electoral votes even though the Constitution merely gives authority to COUNT them, and statute expressly says they may NOT reject any electoral votes that are certified by their State, you’d have to have the President say that because the Constitution says he can make recess appointments, he decides instead to use the recess to CREATE a whole ‘nother Cabinet post, even though there is a statute saying that when the President makes recess appointments he may never create a new Cabinet post.
If Mom gives you permission to eat one cookie that can NOT be construed to mean she gives you permission to eat the whole cookie jar. Especially if she puts Dad in charge of overseeing the process and he says, “No cookie other than the one you had permission to eat may be eaten.”
so what do you think guys, what is this?
I can’t figure out all this legal speak.
No, you’re wrong. While the method are enumerated, the actual practice is an instantiated power.
In both instances, the President seeks to game the Constitution through administrative trickery to cut out the legislative advice and consent and ability to over ride vetos <— that’s not enumerated in the Constitution, it is however instantiated as a consequence of it’s enumeration. So it’s perfectly Constitutional for the President to exploit this.
But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let the SCOTUS address it as they did in:
Pocket Veto Case - 279 U.S. 655 (1929)