• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Kellyanne Conway's Husband Sez:

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,470
4,318
136
Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

"What now seems an eternity ago, the conservative law professor Steven Calabresi published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May arguing that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. His article got a lot of attention, and it wasn’t long before President Trump picked up the argument, tweeting that “the Appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

He argued that Mr. Mueller was a principal officer because he is exercising significant law enforcement authority and that since he has not been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was unconstitutional. As one of us argued at the time, he was wrong. What makes an officer a principal officer is that he or she reports only to the president. No one else in government is that person’s boss. But Mr. Mueller reports to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. So, Mr. Mueller is what is known as an inferior officer, not a principal one, and his appointment without Senate approval was valid.

But Professor Calabresi and the president were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very, very significant consequence today.

It means that President Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.

[...]

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom President Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice.

[...]

The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

Because Mr. Whitaker has not undergone the process of Senate confirmation, there has been no mechanism for scrutinizing whether he has the character and ability to evenhandedly enforce the law in such a position of grave responsibility. The public is entitled to that assurance, especially since Mr. Whitaker’s only supervisor is President Trump himself, and the president is hopelessly compromised by the Mueller investigation. That is why adherence to the requirements of the Appointments Clause is so important here, and always."

^^^ I stand with Mr. Conway and Justice Thomas on this core constitutional issue!

You?
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,470
4,318
136
It's probably legal under the Vacancies Act.
Mr. Conway and his lawyer co-author vehemently disagree:

"In times of crisis, interim appointments need to be made. Cabinet officials die, and wars and other tragic events occur. It is very difficult to see how the current situation comports with those situations. And even if it did, there are officials readily at hand, including the deputy attorney general and the solicitor general, who were nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate. Either could step in as acting attorney general, both constitutionally and statutorily.

Because Mr. Whitaker has not undergone the process of Senate confirmation, there has been no mechanism for scrutinizing whether he has the character and ability to evenhandedly enforce the law in such a position of grave responsibility. The public is entitled to that assurance, especially since Mr. Whitaker’s only supervisor is President Trump himself, and the president is hopelessly compromised by the Mueller investigation. That is why adherence to the requirements of the Appointments Clause is so important here, and always.

As we wrote last week, the Constitution is a bipartisan document, written for the ages to guard against wrongdoing by officials of any party. Mr. Whitaker’s installation makes a mockery of our Constitution and our founders’ ideals."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,358
25,096
136
Mean while slow searching the web for something that agrees with him so he can post it. Incoming bullshit 5.. 4..
I mean I think we already know what he's going to say, that Sessions resigned and was not fired. He will say this despite the fact that Sessions himself stated he resigned after being ordered to, which any rational person would construe as the same thing as being fired.

He will do this while in the other Tucker Carlson thread he will complain that people don't understand the obvious context of people saying 'we know where you live' and he will not note any incongruence between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,563
136
It's probably legal under the Vacancies Act.
Not at all. You'd know that if you weren't held in thrall by Trump's mindfuck.

Whitaker is an obvious toady whose appointment violates the law.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,350
658
126
It's inconsistent with the Appointments Clause, and Sessions should be seen as someone that was fired. It's violates both federal law and the Constitution!
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,098
267
136
Not at all. You'd know that if you weren't held in thrall by Trump's mindfuck.

Whitaker is an obvious toady whose appointment violates the law.
How does it violate the law? How does it not fall under the Vacancies Act?
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
How does it violate the law? How does it not fall under the Vacancies Act?
If it's a routine federal vacancy, why the need to override line of succession and not put Rosenstein in the interim role?
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
Remember folks, it's only obstruction when there's a tarmac meeting involved...and preferably a Clinton...and preferably someone with darker skin pigments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,563
136
No requirement to do that

NLRB v SW General.
The NLRB is not a cabinet level position. It's an obvious weasel move by Trump when Senate approved individuals are available, Like Rosenstein & Francisco.

The intention is obviously for Whitaker to quash the investigation, given his past public pronouncements. It's an attempt to obstruct justice, a crime all by itself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,358
25,096
136
The NLRB is not a cabinet level position. It's an obvious weasel move by Trump when Senate approved individuals are available, Like Rosenstein & Francisco.

The intention is obviously for Whitaker to quash the investigation, given his past public pronouncements. It's an attempt to obstruct justice, a crime all by itself.
It's possible additional obstruction of justice, yes. More immediately germane though is the question of whether or not demanding someone's resignation is the same as firing them. I think to any reasonable person it is. If that's the case then Whittaker's appointment is illegal.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,563
136
It's possible additional obstruction of justice, yes. More immediately germane though is the question of whether or not demanding someone's resignation is the same as firing them. I think to any reasonable person it is. If that's the case then Whittaker's appointment is illegal.
It doesn't matter. If Sessions weren't willing to resign he could have forced Trump to fire him.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,358
25,096
136
It doesn't matter. If Sessions weren't willing to resign he could have forced Trump to fire him.
It definitely matters, at least from a legal perspective. As per the OP's article, a forced resignation is equivalent to firing someone.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY