The Bolton Plan (another recess appointment, with a twist!)

Human Events ^ | October 3, 2006 | Human Events

[finnman69]

F Chafee

[Digger]

Bush keeps getting screwed by liberal Republicans.

I don't feel sorry for GW in the least. In fact he deserves it by the way he coddels to these fools & the rest of the the liberals. I just wish we would have had a president that would attack the real enemy - the enemy within.

[finnman69]

better yet

appoint him as "Honorary Lincoln-Chafee-is-a-Bitch UN Ambassador"

[SevenofNine]

That what I call unholy alliance

karl Rove Michael Bolton and John Bolton LOL!

[RobbyS]

Give him plenlipotentiary authority as special rep of the President. To hell with State. He could play Colonel House.

[xzins]

In order for Bolton to be paid, however, he would also have to be appointed to a different position while his formal title would have to be changed.

I can't think of a constitutional reason why this would be so. Can some constitutional guy help me with this?

It seems to me that the Pres. can recess appoint whomever he wishes.

[GSlob]

No deputies, for that smacks of demotion. The title should be along the lines of "Ambassador, first class" .

[MagnusMat]

Coul someone post this, please

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01

[festus]

How 'bout we call him "The Supreme Ruler" or else "UN President" just fer kicks..........

[Freedom is eternally right]

Already posted two times. (do a search by title)

[SuzyQue]

Wow! It's ugly over there. Those people are idiots. Bitter idiots.

[AmeriBrit]

That shouldn't be any problem.

The U.N. could pay him his salary and raise out of the $Billions US taxpayers money clinton illegally diverted to the UN.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/626322/posts?page=95

[Ready4Freddy]

AFAIK a recess appointment at this time would expire with the beginning of the 2nd Session of this Congress in January, 2007.

[Petronski]

Yes, but with a third to follow as soon as possible.

[kcar]

Pay him out of our UN "dues", and give him a raise. Also provide a commission for other savings he can effect over there, and golden parachutes if we close it down completely.

[P-Marlowe]

I think there may be a rule that a recess appoinment cannot be renewed after the term expires. If that is the case, as someone else pointed out, all Bush needs to do is to demote him to senior deputy UN Ambassador and not fill the Ambassador post. Bolton would then be "acting" UN ambassador until such time as the Senate takes up the nomination again.

[Ready4Freddy]

I misspoke, any appointment now would expire at the end of next session. Trick is getting him paid, of course:

Are There Any Legal Constraints on the President’s Recess Appointment Power?

There is no qualification to the President’s “Power to fill up all Vacancies...” in the constitutional provision. Neither is there a statutory constraint on this power. There are, however, two points of statutory law that may prevent a recess appointee from being paid. Under 5 U.S.C. 5503(a), if the position to which the President makes a recess appointment fell vacant while the Senate was in session, the recess appointee may not be paid from the Treasury until he or she is confirmed by the Senate. The salary prohibition does not apply: (1) if the vacancy arose within 30 days before the end of the session; (2) if a nomination for the office (other than the nomination of someone given a recess appointment during the preceding recess) was pending when the Senate recessed; or (3) if a nomination was rejected within 30 days before the end of the session and another individual was given the recess appointment. A recess appointment falling under any one of these three exceptions must be followed by a nomination to the position not later than 40 days after the beginning of the next session of the Senate.8 For this reason, when a recess appointment is made, the President generally submits a new nomination to the position even when an old nomination is pending. In addition, although recess appointees whose nominations to a full term are subsequently rejected by the Senate may continue to serve until the end of their recess appointment, a provision routinely included in an appropriations act may prevent them from being paid after their rejection. (See below, “What happens if the nomination of someone holding a recess appointment is rejected by the Senate?”)

and...

What Happens If the Nomination of Someone Holding a Recess Appointment Is Rejected by the Senate?

Rejection by the Senate does not end the recess appointment. Payment to the appointee may be prevented, however, by a recurring provision of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. The provision reads, “No part of any appropriation for the current fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid to any person for the filling of any position for which he or she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination of said person.”10 This provision has been part of this annual funding activity for at least 50 years. As a practical matter, nominations are rarely rejected by a vote of the full Senate.

[Txsleuth]

I say...whatever it takes to keep Bolton at the UN, DO IT....cheat, lie, steal....I don't care.

[Ready4Freddy]

and...:

Can the President Make Successive Recess Appointments to the Same Position?

The President may make successive recess appointments of the same or a different individual to a position. Payment from the Treasury to the appointee may be limited, however, under 5 U.S.C. 5503. (See also above, “Are there any legal constraints on the President’s recess appointment power?”) Subsection 5503(a) provides, in part, that: Payment for services may not be made from the Treasury of the United States to an individual appointed during a recess of the Senate to fill a vacancy in an existing office, if the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session and was by law required to be filled by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the appointee has been confirmed by the Senate. The provision allows three exemptions to this pay prohibition, two of which would not apply in this situation. Under the remaining exemption, “if, at the end of the session, a nomination for the office, other than the nomination of an individual appointed during the preceding recess of the Senate, was pending before the Senate for its advice and consent,” the prohibition would not apply.11 The clause “other than the nomination of an individual appointed during the preceding recess of the Senate” probably would prevent payment in the case of most successive recess appointments. This interpretation has been supported by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Department of Justice, which stated in 1991, “Although its language is far from clear, section 5503(a) has been interpreted as prohibiting the payment of compensation to successive recess appointees.”12

BTW, all the above excerpts are from Henry B. Hogue, "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions," (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21308.pdf) Congressional Research Service, updated March 15, 2005

[StarCMC]

Hee hee hee! (Just teasin'! LOL) Although IMO, it takes a special kind of person to be appointed to the US. Yuck!!