[arrogantsob]

Congress was referred to as a plural in the times of the Founding. We speak of it as a singular but the Founders did not. Since “Congress” cannot be considered to be sitting unless both Houses are sitting it would be effectively adjourned if one is not. Presumably one House could still be in session even if Congress is not.

If Obama does not sign the bill within ten day it will be law. But we can, no doubt, expect all the dirty tricks and questionable acts he can come up with.

[daniel885]

Not according to Wright v United States. It basically takes the same assumption as you are making but reverses it. Congress IS in session unless both houses adjourn.

They wrote in reference to a similar scenerio:

“The Congress’ did not adjourn. The Senate alone was in recess. The Constitution creates and defines ‘the Congress.’ It consists ‘of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ Article 1, § 1. The Senate is not ‘the Congress.”

So if only one half of Congress adjourns but the other has not then Congress as a whole has not adjourned. At least that’s my understanding of it. If I’m wrong, please do explain. I’m not a lawyer, that’s why I’m throwing this out there.

[KarlInOhio]

Congress was referred to as a plural in the times of the Founding. We speak of it as a singular but the Founders did not. Since “Congress” cannot be considered to be sitting unless both Houses are sitting it would be effectively adjourned if one is not. Presumably one House could still be in session even if Congress is not.

Or was it plural like the Brits would say "The government are..." or "The company are..." where we would use the singular form "is". Congress may have been plural in the sense that it is made of 535 individuals, not that it has two houses.