With those words, you've conceded the debate: The authority to prosecute can be delegated. If it's delegated, then it can be exercised by whomever it is delegated to.
Me: And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
You: _No it doesn't. Not without a nomination by the Chief Executive. Name one such appointment by Congress._
Just stop being so intellectually dishonest. It matters not whether Congress has ever actually exercised its Contitutionally-granted authority to have "lesser officers" appointed by someone not a member of the Executive Branch. What matters is the fact that the semantics of the Constitutional clause which states that the "Executive Power of The United States" is vested in a President of the United States must be determined based on the entire text of the Constitution. And in that text, Congress is given the authority to have someone who is not a member of the Executive Branch appoint "lesser officers" of the Executive Branch. And that fact utterly destroys the wrongful interpretation you're pushing, even without considering the "rule of law" issue.
The Constitution allows the president to delegate power, so that inferior officers may be hired by others in the executive branch.
So you can't read. Nice to know. Article II, clearly says that Congress may empower "Heads of Departments" to make such appointments without even consulting the President, and without his approval:
...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.
That doesn't mean that president surrenders the power to hire and fire such inferior officers.
The President has no power to fire a "lesser officer" appointed by a Federal Court. The whole point of that grant of power to Congress was to absolutely prevent that. No court would ever rule otherwise, and you know it.
Many believe that the firing of an FBI Director, or of a US Attorney, or of an Attorney General (all of whom are appointed by the President, not by a Federal Court) would result in a "Constitutional Crisis" (or already has done so.) The reaction to a President firing a "lesser officer" appointed by a Federal Court would result in a whole new level of "resistance." Impeachment would follow automatically, assuming the Federal courts didn't nullify it (which they would, if asked.)
Who does such an "inferior" prosecutor of a Chief Executive answer to?? ANSWER the question.
I've already answered it: Only the person who made the appointment can fire the official, once confirmed by Congress. Although Congress can, of course, always impeach and then remove the person.
I know this because I actually lived through Watergate. Nixon was legally unable to fire Cox directly. He had to order his then Attorney General (Elliot Richardson) to do it, who refused -- as was his legal right to do. So Nixon had to fire his Attorney General. He could not legally fire Cox directly, or he would have done so. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
That's settled law. It aso utterly destroys your argument.
Article II Section 2 Clause 2
Congress establishes departments and offices by law. For inferior officers of these departments, Congress "vests" (a.k.a confers) the power to appointment, "in the president alone", to the "Courts of Law" or in the "Heads of Departments".
Congress does't have the power to appoint.
Congress doesn't appoint.
For inferior officers, Congress vests the power to the appoint.
For inferior officers, it's the president, the courts of law and the heads of departments that are conferred the right to appoint.
You don't understand the difference between having the right to appoint, and conferring the right to appoint. I would suggest you learn the difference.
I would suggest that you go to a site like Find Law or some other equivalent site and read the explanations for Article II Section 2 Clause 2
You are lacking in knowledge on the basic principles of the Constitution, and your ability to read and understand the Constitution is poor.
s: And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
fr: _No it doesn't. Not without a nomination by the Chief Executive. Name one such appointment by Congress._
s:Just stop being so intellectually dishonest. It matters not whether Congress has ever actually exercised its Contitutionally-granted authority to have "lesser officers" appointed by someone not a member of the Executive Branch. What matters is the fact that the semantics of the Constitutional clause which states that the "Executive Power of The United States" is vested in a President of the United States must be determined based on the entire text of the Constitution. And in that text, Congress is given the authority to have someone who is not a member of the Executive Branch appoint "lesser officers" of the Executive Branch. And that fact utterly destroys the wrongful interpretation you're pushing, even without considering the "rule of law" issue.