Trump's "Acting Attorney General" Deems Unconstitutional
Matt Whitaker, Trump's power grab is Unconstitutional! Whitaker is a fake "Acting Attorney General". Read George Conway article.
Donald Trump kicked off the post-midterms era of his presidency on Wednesday by firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as part of a not-at-all disguised attempt to quash the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign by special counsel Robert Mueller. Among his other qualifications for the job, interim replacement Matt Whitaker has said that the probe has "gone too far," and could be easily obstructed if only the Justice Department were controlled by a partisan loyalist willing to choke funds and seal records at the president's direction.
With that now the case, Democrats and other proponents of basic norms and laws are sounding the emergency alarm bells. On Thursday morning, New York Congressman Jerry Nadler—who will come January chair the House Judiciary Committee—described the situation as a "constitutionally perilous moment for our country," and promised consequences if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were to be taken off the investigation. And it appears that has happened with Whitaker's appointment—a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed yesterday that "the Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice." [Emphasis added.]
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein has also sent letters to top officials in the Trump administration demanding the preservation of all documents and materials related to the special counsel. CM
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns/z1CNJtWBJ0Bf7qKPilLUaP/
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Matt Whitaker, Trump's power grab is Unconstitutional! Whitaker is a fake "Acting Attorney General". Read George Conway article.Donald Trump kicked off the post-midterms era of his presidency on Wednesday by firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as part of a not-at-all disguised attempt to quash the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign by special counsel Robert Mueller. Among his other qualifications for the job, interim replacement Matt Whitaker has said that the probe has "gone too far," and could be easily obstructed if only the Justice Department were controlled by a partisan loyalist willing to choke funds and seal records at the president's direction.
Of course, it has gone too far and too long too.
With that now the case, Democrats and other proponents of basic norms and laws are sounding the emergency alarm bells. On Thursday morning, New York Congressman Jerry Nadler—who will come January chair the House Judiciary Committee—described the situation as a "constitutionally perilous moment for our country," and promised consequences if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were to be taken off the investigation. And it appears that has happened with Whitaker's appointment—a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed yesterday that "the Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice." [Emphasis added.]
Constitutionally perilous moment? Nothing but unhinged rhetoric.
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein has also sent letters to top officials in the Trump administration demanding the preservation of all documents and materials related to the special counsel. CM
Oh yes, she loves preservation of documents and releasing (leaking) them at politically opportunistic moments..
-
PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html
Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional
The president is evading the requirement to seek the Senate’s advice and consent for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the person who will oversee the Mueller investigation.By Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Conway are lawyers.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!”
Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.
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 Mr. Trump were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very significant consequence today.
It means that Mr. 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.
Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power... CM
-
@C_M_ said:
PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html
Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional
The president is evading the requirement to seek the Senate’s advice and consent for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the person who will oversee the Mueller investigation.By Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Conway are lawyers.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!”
Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.
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 Mr. Trump were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very significant consequence today.
It means that Mr. 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.
Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power... CM
It is not illegal. Good grief.
-
@reformed said:
It is not illegal. Good grief.
Does this mean that you disagree with Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in THIS CASE FROM 2017 in which he declared that according to the "principals" clause in the Constitution, ALL "principals" in the federal executive branch - and the attorney general is certainly one of the principals - MUST be confirmed by the Senate, even if the principal is appointed for a short- or temporary basis? If so, on what constitutional basis do you disagree with Justice Thomas?
If Thomas and the Court's majority in that case are right, then it seems to me clear that the Court would rule Whitaker's appointment to be unconstitutional since he's a principal and has NOT been confirmed by the Senate.
-
"This is a train wreck waiting to happen". This is no big secret. This is a News Cycle Changer, legal or not, it's Trump's approved. Fact! CM
