6 Pages Posted: 15 Feb 2007
This is the fourth piece in a dialogue in Northwestern Law Review's Colloquy on the Senate's control over terminating recess appointments. In it, I answer Seth Barrett Tillman's reply.
First, I reject Tillman's updated defense of his claim that the Senate can unilaterally terminate its half of a regular session of Congress. In the process, I identify additional constitutional and practical problems with Tillman's argument.
Second, I clarify that the Senate has the constitutional power to adjourn a Senate-only special session without the president's permission (Tillman's reply claims that I argued otherwise). However, I clarify further that the Senate's power here is largely worthless, for practical, non-constitutional reasons. I also defend my position from other objections that Tillman's reply raises.
Tillman's opening article appears at 2007 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 2, and at http://ssrn.com/abstract=956164.
My initial response appears at 2007 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 3, and at http://ssrn.com/abstract=959051.
Tillman's reply appears at 2007 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 4, and at http://ssrn.com/abstract=962100.
Keywords: President, Senate, Congress, Recess Appointment, Recess, Appointment, Adjournment
JEL Classification: K00, K19
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Kalt, Brian C., Keeping Tillman Adjournments in Their Place: A Rejoinder to Seth Barrett Tillman. Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, No. 6, 2007; Michigan State University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4-16 . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=962762