It is Constitutional.
Article II Section 2 Clause 2
...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.
-PJ
...but the Congress may grant the preside3nt the power to do so- meaning, as I understand it, that it’s an incident issued vesting- not a once for all vesting- meanign everytime the president wants ot appoint he must call on congress to allow him to do so without their confirmation being needed-
Unless I’m misunderstanding hte issue- I don’;t beleive congress granted him that privilege this time- and he just took it on himself to ignore trheir right to be the oens to allow him to do so
A ‘vested interest’ is like a will where someoen can’t inherit $$ until theyu turn 21 or whatever the will states- that’s a ‘vested itnerest’ and it’s a legally binding promise for that person alone- and no other- the brother or sister can not collect if the will states that only the one sibling is entitled to the money-
Now, IF congress has vested all future presidents the right to appooint without confirmation- then that’s another story, however, section two of article 2 does not state that congress has doen any such thing, and only appears to give copgnress the right to allow the president to do so in idividual cases and on a case by case basis- not cart blanc power to appoint hwenever he feels liek without consent of congress- the key point in the following “vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper,” is “As they see proper’ strongly suggests that it’s a case by case issue, not a once for all granting of the privilege to appoint without confirmation proceedings
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but I’ve seen nothign that grasnts presidents the cart blanc power to appoint without confirmation whenever they like