Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In my view, the Mueller appointment violates the Constitution and every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement should be viewed as null and void.
Rosenstein gave himself, or rather seized the "presidential powers" by appointing principal Officer (at least Mueller is acting as he is one), and completely bypassed the Senate confirmation. That is unconstitutional.
theDoctorisin brought up Morrison v. Olson, and I already explained in my limited knowledge the differences in between two. If I am wrong, let's discuss why I am, but I think I am not...
I found another case, Edmond v. United States from 1997, where Justice Scalia summarized the history of appointment clause where he said:
"The Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of "etiquette or protocol"; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches..."
Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997)
The president, not Deputy AG, has exclusive power of nomination.
Edmond v. US is about military judges. It has nothing to do with a special counsel.
What I wrote is not about the Edmond v. US. It's about what Scalia wrote about presidential appointments. I even make it bold for you, and you still missed it.
Scalia is only one (former) judge - and the cases aren't the slightest bit similar.
Morrison v. Olsen is controlling here - it explicitly rules that special counsels are Constitutional.
Yes, special counsels are constitutional. It also clarifies who can appoint them, what are their duties, limitations, powers, and what exactly is their jurisdiction and scope. Hardly any of those requirements are satisfied by Mueller's appointment.
You know, I've read the decision a number of times, but I don't see any of those "clarifications" you're speaking of.
Where should I be looking?
President Trump is letting this go on when he doesnāt have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when itās too late to do damage control.
Watch and learn.
#TheStorm is coming. Right?
President Trump is letting this go on when he doesnāt have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when itās too late to do damage control.
Watch and learn.
Whether I agree with you, or not... what you just wrote, and what you said you believe is completely irrelevant to this thread.
President Trump is letting this go on when he doesnāt have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when itās too late to do damage control.
Watch and learn.
Letting them dig deeper and deeper holes has certainly worked like gangbusters so far. I wonder if a little too much arrogance might come back and bite him in the ass, though. And, I'm still not happy with Sessions not getting indictments against Hillary, Obama, Comey, and the rest, despite numerous clear felonies and RICO violations.
Are they having to wait to make more SC appointments or what? Makes no sense to me at this point why they're holding back.
You know I never looked at it from that view, and what you post does make comman sense which is lacking in the posting so far. Thanks for the info.Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?
According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
He very well might be going to do just that.President Trump is letting this go on when he doesnāt have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when itās too late to do damage control.
Watch and learn.
.
If someone just not get the axe then we need to do something to change it big time.President Trump is letting this go on when he doesnāt have to. I believe that the reason is that he is in control of it and he is going to drop a bomb on the Democrats that will destroy them right before the elections when itās too late to do damage control.
Watch and learn.
Letting them dig deeper and deeper holes has certainly worked like gangbusters so far. I wonder if a little too much arrogance might come back and bite him in the ass, though. And, I'm still not happy with Sessions not getting indictments against Hillary, Obama, Comey, and the rest, despite numerous clear felonies and RICO violations.
Are they having to wait to make more SC appointments or what? Makes no sense to me at this point why they're holding back.
There is enough crime, in my opinion, to indict Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Strzok, Mccabe, Brennan, Lynch, Powers...
Either Sessions is under some control of the left, maybe they have some dirt on him, or he's patient and playing by the book and waiting to have enough to indict everyone.
Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?
According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.
Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.
Was Mueller appointment by Rosenstein constitutional?
According to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that refers to the presidential powers:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Here is the issue with Mueller appointment. All principal Officers are to be nominated and appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Principal Officers are to appoint inferior Officers and Senate confirmation is not required. Since Mueller is not nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, he is not principal Officer. Mueller being appointed by Rosenstein makes him inferior Officer, and no inferior Officer can have powers and mandate broad as such, that Mueller has. Even US Attorneys, who are principal Officers, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate don't have powers that Mueller has.
Having said that, if Mueller have such broad powers to even investigate the President, that would make him principal Officer, which he's not since he's not nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, meaning, Mueller is overreaching his mandate. Second, Rosenstein, as pronicpal Officer have no powers to appoint the principal Officer (which by the given mandate Mueller is acting as he is), therefore he did something that only President and Senate can do, so the Mueller appointment is clearly unconstitutional.
Yes.
You know I never looked at it from that view, and what you post does make comman sense which is lacking in the posting so far. Thanks for the info.
I didn't want to start new topic, hence I'm adding little context to this one.
Immediately after Trump got elected, the left has drawn the long knives and two people who were nominated and confirmed abandoned their responsibilities. One of them AG of the US Jeff Sessions who recuses himself, and the other one is Deputy AG of the US Rod Rosenstein who appoints the "special council" with no legal bases for appointment.
Since AG Sessions recused himself (more about this later), the Deputy AG became the Acting AG who makes all the decisions. Although he wasn't confirmed as Acting AG yet, he immediately seized the power of the AG and appoint's the "special counsel", which he cannot do before he gets confirmed as an Acting AG. To me that is a fault.
Now about Sessions, he recused himself:because of the DOJ regulation that forbids DOJ officials from investigating matters of which they were a part. Having said that, Rosenstein should have follow the same DOJ regulation and recuse himself for the same reason, because he was one of the signers of FISA applications. That's another fault. Also, he recused himself over specific areas, while Rosenstein has been granting authority to the "special counsel" over broad areas that only the real AG has power to do so. While Session refuses to intercede, and Rosenstein just keeps adding. Another fault.
As I said earlier in this thread, Rosenstein as Acting AG improperly overtakes the power of the AG and of the US Attorney as principal officer on the inferior officer that he chose and that is in violation of DOJ regulations and Constitution of the United States (in regards who can nominate and appoint principal officers). Yet another fault.
The "special council" exercising powers that are repulsive to our constitutional system continues to expand the scope of his activities and continues to be supported by Deputy AG as an Acting AG Rosenstein, while the actual AG Sessions continues to sit on the sideline. As I mentioned earlier, this raises the question about appointment clause.
Clearly you are enunciating one of the many strategies that Don the Con is going with to try to shield his former colleagues from prosecution.
As you mentioned- you are not a lawyer- but the judge who reviewed Manafort's pleadings on exactly these issues- is a lawyer- and ruled that your 'questions' are just that- your questions- not a legal defense.
Unless special prosecutor is elevated to a cabinet level position or is tied to national security, Congress has no role to play
Unless special prosecutor is elevated to a cabinet level position or is tied to national security, Congress has no role to play
This is the part where you point to the constitutional article, section, paragraph, law or regulation to back that up. Otherwise, saying something just to say something is, as usually, just garbage you pulled out of your ass and threw it out there.
Unless special prosecutor is elevated to a cabinet level position or is tied to national security, Congress has no role to play
This is the part where you point to the constitutional article, section, paragraph, law or regulation to back that up. Otherwise, saying something just to say something is, as usually, just garbage you pulled out of your ass and threw it out there.
Ok. Did you do the same showing Mr. Mueller is a āprincipal officerā though?
Please quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officerUnless special prosecutor is elevated to a cabinet level position or is tied to national security, Congress has no role to play
This is the part where you point to the constitutional article, section, paragraph, law or regulation to back that up. Otherwise, saying something just to say something is, as usually, just garbage you pulled out of your ass and threw it out there.
Ok. Did you do the same showing Mr. Mueller is a āprincipal officerā though?
You do know what "principal officer" is, how is appointed, or I have to repeat it just for you?
Please quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officerUnless special prosecutor is elevated to a cabinet level position or is tied to national security, Congress has no role to play
This is the part where you point to the constitutional article, section, paragraph, law or regulation to back that up. Otherwise, saying something just to say something is, as usually, just garbage you pulled out of your ass and threw it out there.
Ok. Did you do the same showing Mr. Mueller is a āprincipal officerā though?
You do know what "principal officer" is, how is appointed, or I have to repeat it just for you?
So are you now saying that the special prosecutor is not a principal officerPlease quote the constitution where it says the special prosecutor is a principal officerUnless special prosecutor is elevated to a cabinet level position or is tied to national security, Congress has no role to play
This is the part where you point to the constitutional article, section, paragraph, law or regulation to back that up. Otherwise, saying something just to say something is, as usually, just garbage you pulled out of your ass and threw it out there.
Ok. Did you do the same showing Mr. Mueller is a āprincipal officerā though?
You do know what "principal officer" is, how is appointed, or I have to repeat it just for you?
Go back to the opening post, or anywhere in the thread, and and find where I made that claim.
