It is amusing to see how the left can pick and choose among constitutional requirements. The part of the Constitution authorizing "recess appointments" absent Senate confirmation is alive. The word "recess," though, no longer has its original meaning if the President determines that a sparsely attended but not adjourned session is actually a recess as specified in the Constitution.  This new evolving interpretation was only noticed recently after the Democrats tried to use such non-recess recesses to block President Bush's appointments.

But wait, there is more. The "living" Constitution is supposed to adapt the intent of the Founders to modern circumstances which may have "evolved."  The Second Amendment is a good example.  So are the penumbras which protect the right to kill pre-born babies.  

Now it is clear that the whole concept of recess appointments was designed for a time when Congress could not easily be called into session at a moment's notice. Today, that is no longer the case.  Why doesn't that render the whole practice of recess appointments obsolete just like, say the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Oh no! I hope I haven't given Harry Reid an idea for the 113^th Congress.