[FreeReign]

Read Article II Section 2 Clause 2, quit being intellectually dense, and learn something.

Article II Section 2 Clause 2

He (the president) 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.

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.

[sourcery]

You are lacking in knowledge on the basic principles of the Constitution, and your ability to read and understand the Constitution is poor.

That's your problem, not mine.

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.

Wrong. I understand the difference quite well. Re-rereading my past comments, I see that I unfortunately managed to give the impression that Congress actually could directly appoint Executive Branch officials, instead of having the power to control who may appoint them. For that, I must apologize. My statements were poorly worded.

That said, you're avoiding the issue: The issue is not whom Congress may or may not appoint to what office, it's the fact that Congress can deny the President the authority to appoint people to serve as officers of the Executive Branch. Not only have you failed to refute that fact, you can't. Because it's right there in Article II, section 2, clause 2. And that fact utterly destroys your interpretation of Article II, section 1, clause 1.

Worse, by your silence, you've conceded the point that there are officials of the Executive Branch whom the President cannot directly fire. One such was the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox (The Saturday Night Massacre.) The fact that Nixon had to fire his Attorney General (Richardson) in order to get an acting Attorney General who was willing to fire Cox really says all that needs to be said on the matter. But you know that. It's why you ignored the point.

If President Nixon could have directly fired Cox, then why did he need to fire Richardson? If he could not legally fire Cox, then you're interpretation of Article II is invalid. It really is that simple.