Related Citations
-
Michael B. Rappaport, Why Non-Originalism Does not Justify Departing from the Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause, 38 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 889 (2015).
-
Robert G. Natelson, The Origins and Meaning of “Vacancies That May Happen During the Recess” in the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, 37 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 199 (2014).
-
Curtis A. Bradley & Neil S. Siegel, After Recess: Historical Practice, Textual Ambiguity, and Constitutional Adverse Possession, 2014 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1 (2014).
-
David J. Arkush, The Original Meaning of Recess, 17 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 161 (2014).
-
Amelia Frenkel, Defining Recess Appointments Clause “Vacancies,” 88 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 729 (2013).
-
Cass R. Sunstein, Originalism v. Burkeanism: A Dialogue Over Recess, 126 Harv. L. Rev. Forum 126 (2013).
-
Jonathan Turley, Recess Appointments in the Age of Regulation, 93 B.U. L. Rev. 1523 (2013).
-
Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Adverse Possession: Recess Appointments and the Role of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 2013 Wis. L. Rev. 965 (2013).
-
Alex N. Kron, The Constitutional Validity of Pro Forma Recess Appointments: A Bright-Line Test Using a Substance-Over-Form Approach, 98 Iowa L. Rev. 397 (2012).
-
Alexander I. Platt, Preserving the Appointments Safety Valve, 30 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 255 (2011).
-
Michael B. Rappaport, The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause, 52 UCLA L. Rev. 1487 (2005).
-
Michael A. Carrier, When is the Senate in Recess for Purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause?, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 2204 (1994).
-
Thomas A. Curtis, Note, Recess Appointments to Article III Courts: The Use of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 1758 (1984).