I was thinking along the lines of either the appointer being unqualified to have made the appointment or the appointee having falsified credentialing.
Like when first Co I worked at found out a VP did not have claimed degrees/experience and was booking bid/proposal $ as revenue for the purpose of obtaining financing...
Ahhh. In those cases, the opposite of what you might think happens, is what actually happens. The bigger or more substantial the error, the more likely the actions of the usurper are upheld under "de facto officer doctrine." There's one case where some admin judges in a military court are unqualified, and the one case they decided was undone. But Obama's actions would all be upheld if a court found that he was not qualified. Too much chaos if there as an attempt to undo all that, so the law just lets it ride.