thing for the woman to be more in the position of the leaders. the leaders can be in private sector in government. if you have a combination of male and female, good thing for female, female is more detailed and more concentrated. i think that is thing that sometimes in terms of business, needs to be having vision and sometimes need someone to keep more detail and concentrate in the details, that is the area that i see the strength of the female has. for the politics, politics that of course, that are the nonviolent like the -- like i had a chance to meet her, she was a symbol of the nonviolent and she fight for the democracy, so this is the real world democra

democracy, if we have good combination, sometimes the passion of female can help the world and solve all the problems as long as we sit down and talk together. but anyway, the equal between male and female, doesn't mean it is significant on the number, but it means on the capable for someone who matched the country, and help the country and especially have more chance to have female, so we will be the chance to increase the stability of the economy, thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> i must say that actually, this panel in a sense addressed the question of whether greater female participation diffuses violence, we have a half panel that is woman and it's less violent and less tense than

other panels. i said the cent alternative challenge was slavery and in this century it will be to achieve greater gender qualitied around the world. thank this panel for dress -- for addressing this issue. thanks. >> you had a nice fa sillity here. >> a number of live events to tell you b at 11:20, the president and the vice president will be remarking live on cspan2. a pentagon briefing over the burning of korans, and we are

likely to hear questions about the killing of two high ranking military advisers. that pentagon briefing gets under way at 11:30 eastern. and this evening, gop presidential candidate, rick santorum, wraps up campaigning in michigan, ahead of the state's primary tomorrow, he will be at the heritage christian academy. that is at 7:30 eastern. this is a 7 watt solar panel, it collects the power and you can charge your phones and cell phones directly. >> what are you seeing on this chip, you are seeing an area that has 165 million wells, each of which can sequence a small piece of dna. >> the technology itself is using two cameras, one that looks outs and one that looks at the eyes. so we know exactly what the

person is interested in, in the scene they are seeing. >> a fifth and finality visit to the consumer's eelectronics show. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this particular phone only rings in a serious crisis. put it in the hand of a man who has proven himself responsible. vote for president johnson. >> bush and dukakis on crime. he allowed first degree murderers to have weekend passes from prison. >> the accusations that john kerry made were terrible. >> we can all point to an outrage us commercial or two or three or four, but on average,

negative commercials are more likely to be factually correct and are more likely to talk about issues. >> will 2012 go down as the most negative campaign cycle in history? a discussion looks at current and past political campaigns and their impacts on american culture. watch this and past panels on campaigns online. >> constitutional law experts recently discussed the recess appointments earlier this year. two of the panelists argued that the appointments of richard cordray was unconstitutional because the senate was in session. the other experts say the president had no choice but to

act and had every legal means to do so. this is about two hours. >> thank you for attending this session on whether the president's recess appointments were constitutional. peter wallison i'm a professor here at the american enterprise institute and i'll moderate the panel. let me start off with basics. the relevant sections of the constitution are up there on the chart. but, we will be dealing today mostly with article 2, section 2, clause 3 which says the president shall have the power to fill up all va cansies, by grantsing commissions that shall expire at the end of their next session. now, there's a lot in this single sentence it seems to me

that we should find helpful in understandsing the issue we are dealing with. the language said that the president has the power to fill vacancies. this is limiting language. the president does not have the power to fill those spots while the senate is in session. none of the things that we will talk about today have not occurred during a recess. they ail occurred while the -- they all occurred while the senate was in session. so there's that question of whether the presidents that power to fill any of the vacancies, and the suggestion is that the framers only contemplated one recess. if that is the case, it seems likely that they had in mind the time between the senate's

adjournment, and the time of the beginning of the next session. which under the constitution must begin on january 3 of the following year. if this is correct, then we are not going to be talking about recess appointments that were made in the period between sessions of the senate. the recess appointments at issue here were made after the senate had begun the second session of the 112th congress, the one that was elected in 2010. the terms you'll hear a lot about during the discussion are important. everyone aagrees that the constitution gives the president the power to make recession appointments that are inter session, that is between sessions. that is plain from the words of the constitution, what is at issue in this case is whether

the presidents that power to make recess appointments int intrasession that, is while the session is going on. where does the president get that power? the answer is, i think, that it's nowhere in the constitution and presidents, especially modern presidents have simply done it and the senate has general not disagreed that is what president obama relied on when he made his recess appointments as richard cordray as the director of the consumer financial protection brewer and three members of the national labor relations board. as you listen, it's important to be aware of several facts. first, modern presidents have made hundreds of intra-session recess appointments.

first, president george w. bush, for example, made 141 such appointments. second, the supreme court has never spoken on the issue. and a few lower courts that have considered this issue have not done a constitutional analysis. so the questions on the table today are not encrusted with complex precedents and these appointments are almost certain to be taken to the supreme court, not only because of the reasons you'll hear today in the discussion but also because the policy stakes are high. in the cordray case, the question of whether the consumer protection bureau will be able to function if the director was not poinappointed and the same

true for the labor relations bored. the policies of both groups are contesting the authority of the president to make these appointments. if they win those cases, the agencies may not be able to act and they are interim actions may be held to be invalid. fourth, an argument can be made that the senate has considered cordray and rejected him when they could not get together 60 votes to bring up the nomination for debate. so the argument ushlg -- usually advanced that a senate in recess makes it impossible for a president to make an appointment does not apply in the case. until these appointments --

until he's recent appointments the a commendation that seems to have been reached between the president and the senate was that the president could make intra-session appointments if the senate was out of adjournment for an extended period. the snts had not been in session for ten days. the obama recess appointments were made when the senate had not been -- had been in an intra-session recess for only three days. the senate had said up a series of pro forma sessions, one every three days that lasted for only a few seconds. the purpose of the sessions was to make it impossible for the president to make a recess appointment while the senate was out of session for as many as

ten days. the democratic senate had adopted the same strategy against president george w. bush, and it worked. he did not challenge it. but president obama has challenged this idea. a memorandum by the justice department as office of legal council said the pro forma sessions were shams and may not be used to narrow the number of days that the senate was out of session. you'll hear a lot about that subject today. whether the pro forma sessions were long enough to reduce the recession. but keep your eye on the ball. the constitutions language on appointments is the heart of the issue. it seems to give the senate an important role in all

appointments. you can see it up on the screen over there. no one questions that the constitution gives the senate a majority -- a major role in the appointments process. if that is true, then here is the question you should keep in mind as you hear the discussion today. if the president can make recess appointments when ever the senate is out of town, what is left of the senate's constitutional power to advise and consent? now, here is the way that we will proceed in today's session. the first statement will be made by mort rose enburg and followed by doug comic and walter delenger and after the formal presentations i'll give the panel an opportunity to question one another and i'm sure we will

see a spirited debate at that point. then we will go to the audience, so keep track of things you do not think were covered and we will try to address those. many thanks for being here. i hope punish find the package as i think you will, info informative, let me start with a introduction for mort, i have to finds the paper and then i'll sit down. what i want to say about mort is he is an expert and has been for a good many years in the appointments issue. he was a member of the congressional research service and he was there during one of the periods when the crs had its most important business dealing

with appointments and that was during the watergate period for richard nixon and his opinions, they were nine of them during that period were important in establishing some of the basic ideas for how we look today at the appointments process. he also served as consultant and general council -- to the general council of the public company accounting oversight board, and it's private council in presenting briefs in the 2009 case, free enterprise fund, which was another appointments case, he has been a specialist, as i said, in american public law with the american law division of the congressional research service and was in

congressional practice and procedure and labor law. and in problems raised by the enter face of congress and the executive branch. in 2004, i'm sorry, in 2005, he was the recipient of the 2004/2005 mary c.lauten award. mort, the floor is yours. >> thank you, i want to thank ai and peter and wayne for affording me this opportunity to share my views on this extraordinarily important and urgent constitutional issue with this knowledgeable audience and this very distinguished panel of

legal experts. i feel trepedation of a court argument but i'll plow ahead. i would like to add 1 or two facts to the background that peter gave you. the resolution that put the senate into pro forma session as it is called, said that no business would be conducted during that period of time. and the office of legal council memo that has been relied upon by the president to do these recess appointments makes a big point of, gee, we have been told that no business would be conducted. in fact business was conducted.

on december 23rd, congress by the -- the sent by unanimous consent passed the taxpayer continuation act, emergency taxpayer information act of 2011 and that is quite a legislative act. in a previous pro forma session in august of 2011, similarly, the senate by unanimous consent, once again, passed an faa bill which allowed it to continue operating. both of those were deemed to be emergencies, those that had to be passed that were insisted upon by president obama, and they were passed. the conceded purpose of the pro

forma sessions that have occurred in the last six months, was to prevent the president from making had he made the appointments in question during the time in question, december 22nd and january 3rd, before the beginning of the second session of this congress, the appointees would have held office for a year. that is, until the end of the next session of the congress, but by waiting until the intrasession period began, the appointees can now hold, unless a court rules otherwise, that -- they can hold office for almost two years. so the choice there of doing these recess appointments during a more plausible intercession period were done for political

purposes, in an intrasession which raises greater problems. however, what makes these appointments more significant and troubling is that they portend a very sharp escalation of an ominous trend that has taken place in the last decade. during this period, intrasession recess appointments for the first time in our political history have exceeded intercession appointments by a dramatic 5-1 ratio, with the for-obama appointments, the combined numbers for the bush and obama administrations is 171 intrasession appointments to 36 intercession appointments. if the olc's notion that the president is free to unilaterally determine when the senate is in a constitutional

recess is accepted in practice and executive dogma, there is nothing left to the senate's confirmation authority. these intercession appointments were supported as we said an office of legal opinion that declared the that the president has the unilateral discretion to determine that the senate is in recess and unavailable to perform its advicive consent functions thereby permitting the president to avoid senate confirmation. olc rests its conclusions on past opinions ever attorneys general and its own office. historical practice that has beenck-ack key essed in by congress and it also rejects the applicability of the senate's

rulemaking authority as upsetting the balance between the branches. the olc exaggerates, proufr, ho the consistency and relevance of past opinions respecting intrasession say appointments as well as how far back in history they actually extend. indeed, as late as 1901, attorney general philander knox opined that only intercession recesses were appropriate and that intrasession adjournments had never been deemed a constitutional recess by any of his predecessors, because of the wording of the recess clause limiting the power to the singular. that is the recess, and the fact that although allowing for intrasession appointments would be convenient, it was not sufficient to overcome the

constitutional requirement for senate confirmation. knox explained though congress may adjourn for months as well as days, the argument of convenience could not be admitted to obscure the true principle and distinctions ruling the point. knox also appreciably recognized that no constitutionally supportable bright line could be drawn allowing presidents to invoke the recess clause only during recesses if the president could make a recess appointment during this 18-day recess that was there. he could see no reason why such an appointment could not be made during any intrasession adjournment from thursday or friday to the following monday. only one president in the first 132 years of the republic, the

embattled andrew johnson in 1867 thought to make a recess appointment during a senate adjou adjournment. intrasession recess appointment. the next one occurred in 1921 when the knox opinion was abandoned by attorney general harry dougherty to allow presidentharding to make one during a 28-day adjournment. dougherty incorrectly relied on an 1825 senate opinion which vehemently criticized teddy roosevelts appointment of 160 office during a constructive recess of a milly secomillisecoa i should explain that. because of knox's opinion in 1901, the only thing roosevelt could do was to do an intrasession recess appointment.

he did that during the end of a special session in 1903, and the start of a, the next session almost immediately thereafter. he did it at bang of the gavel and appointed 160 officials in that instant. two of them were quite controversial, which is why he did it. the committee that criticized that defined a recess as something real. not imaginary. something actual. the committee, of course, was not talking about an intrasession recess which had been ruled unavailable just four years before. but dougherty ignored that and picked it up as a practical construction, advising the president that the real question

in such situations was whether the senate is in session so that its advice could be obtained by the president. dougherty admitted in his opinion that the president -- that line drawing -- there there was a line drawing problem there, but he hurdled that by declaring that the president is vested with a large, though not unlimited, discretion to determine when there is a real and genuine recess making it possible for him to receive the advice and consent of the senate. dougherty's opinion has become the touchstone for all department of justice opinions since then. but still only one more intrasession appointment was given until 1947, for a total of 3 in 151 years. and then until 1980, there were only a modest 54 intrasession

appointments. the big jump and dramatic change, however, has come in the last decade during the bush and clinton administrations, when, as i mentioned, for the first time in history, intrasession recess appointments had exceeded intercession appointments by a 5-1 ratio. if the olc opinion is accepted and practiced and as dogma, there is nothing left to the senate's confirmation authority. remarkably, and tellingly, i believe, the olc opinion asydously avoids any decision whatsoever or discussion of the appointments clause itself. all of the framers debates over the general power of appointment. those debates, however, were heated, contentious and revelatory of their awareness of

the importance of their decision as to how and where they were going to invest, control over the appointing power. the recess clause, however, on the other hand, was adopted by a constitutional convention without debate, which strongly suggests that the framers thought that the clause would not affect the meticulously developed scheme of checks and balances of the general appointments process, which requires action by both the president and the senate to affect any appointment. this view is corroborated by zend alexander hamilton 1967, when he deemed the recess clause a supplement or an auxiliary in nature. the debate records clearly show that the delegates voiced great distress of the executive and expressed the need for checks and balances to un