Irrelevant. Otherwise, only the President could actually be a prosecutor, and would have to personally convene every Grand Jury, would have to personally make each and every arrest, etc.
The President has full authority to delegate "the Executive power" to anyone the Senate confirms to such office. And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
Article II, section 2, clause 2:
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.
Prosecutors are among those whom Congress could appoint themselves, and not just confirm, should Congress so desire. They are "inferior" officers, unlike Cabinet Secretaries ("Heads of Departments.") The Constitution also allows "Heads of Departments" to make appointments all by themselves, without any Presidential approval. The President has zero authority to directly fire anyone whom he did not directly appoint. That's settled law.
Key points:
1) Just because the Constitution vests the "Executive Power of The United States" in the office of the President (note: in the office, and not in the person himself) absolutely does not mean that the man holding the office cannot be indicted. Such an interpretation would violate the principle of the rule of law.
2) The fact that the President can be denied the power (by Congress) to appoint Executive Branch officers, and therefore denied the power to fire them, proves beyond any possibility of refutation that officers of the Executive Branch have the Constitutional authority to exercise the Executive power of the United States without Presidential knowledge or approval.
Irrelevant. Otherwise, only the President could actually be a prosecutor, and would have to personally convene every Grand Jury, would have to personally make each and every arrest, etc.
That makes no sense. Vested power in the Chief Executive can be delegated. It doesn't mean that the power still can't be executed by the Chief Executive. Do you really not know what it means to delegate authority?
The President has full authority to delegate "the Executive power" to anyone the Senate confirms to such office.
Yes, of course.
And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
No it doesn't. Not without a nomination by the Chief Executive. Name one such appointment by Congress.
Prosecutors are among those whom Congress could appoint themselves...
Name one prosecutor that Congress has appointed without first being nominated by the president.
The Constitution also allows "Heads of Departments" to make appointments all by themselves, without any Presidential approval. The President has zero authority to directly fire anyone whom he did not directly appoint.
No. The Constitution allows the president to delegate power, so that inferior officers may be hired by others in the executive branch. That doesn't mean that president surrenders the power to hire and fire such inferior officers.
1) Just because the Constitution vests the "Executive Power of The United States" in the office of the President (note: in the office, and not in the person himself) absolutely does not mean that the man holding the office cannot be indicted. Such an interpretation would violate the principle of the rule of law.
Once again... the president can be indicted after impeachment and removal. Thus the Chief Executive is not above the law. And you are still avoiding the question that I keep asking you. Who does such an "inferior" prosecutor of a Chief Executive answer to?? ANSWER the question.
2) The fact that the President can be denied the power (by Congress) to appoint Executive Branch officers, and therefore denied the power to fire them, proves beyond any possibility of refutation that officers of the Executive Branch have the Constitutional authority to exercise the Executive power of the United States without Presidential knowledge or approval.
Your premise was false. Your conclusion is false.