Charles Cooper

It is Congress's responsibility, its constitutional responsibility, to resist this constitutional excess of his authority.

The plain meaning of the recess appointments clause is obvious.

I think that the real factual circumstances behind some of these appointments are much more egregious than you have outlined.

I believe that President Obama has, indeed, violated the Constitution with these appointments.

This idea that it is the President that has to be satisfied that you are in session is a very dangerous notion.

We shouldn't allow dysfunctional politics to justify dysfunctional constitutional measures.

the President's January 4 recess appointments, in truth, had nothing to do with whether the Senate was available to act, and everything to do with the Senate's unwillingness to confirm the President's nominees.

I would have advised the president to remain carefully and strictly within the bounds of his constitutional authority.

I think the history of the clause, and the recess appointment clause, makes clear that this was a fundamental check on executive power.

there is no support for a reading of the Constitution that unnecessarily restricts the political arrangements available to the President and Congress in fashioning binding consensual solutions to the Nation's relations with the people of…