Posted on 11/09/2018 11:42:57 AM PST by conservative98
thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin took Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe to school over the temporary appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.
“Laurence Tribe has gotten dumber and dumber as the years have gone on,” Levin said.
Tribe argues that the appointment of Whitaker, who previously served as chief of staff to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is unconstitutional. Levin explains that the appointment is perfectly lawful under federal law governing Cabinet vacancies and eligibility to temporarily act as attorney general while President Trump seeks a new nominee to send to the Senate for confirmation.
Levin played clips of several Democrats unthinkingly regurgitating the same talking points on television news. Listen to this clip and you’ll be better informed than the talking heads on TV.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
If he’s not the permanent AG, Whitaker would make a kick-@$$ Chief of Staff if Kelly retires.
President Trump should follow husseins lead and just make Whitaker a law czar.
The illegality is based on the political nature of the commenter and the one appointed. Muller is now toast, and the left can only yak
Can anyone point out exactly and specifically where in the Constitution there is language making this guy’s appointment as acting AG illegal?
Or is this just another lib Bullshit fling?
“Get off the phone, you big dope”!
Levin had a great rant on Hannity’s TV show a couple nights ago. I have to finish watching it. The first couple of minutes were awesome. I was falling asleep so I shut it down but he was on fire about the sickening Democrats.
I like Mark Levin when he delves into these legal questions, but on this point he's playing the role of a political pundit and not a lawyer.
There's no way in hell a statute like the Federal Vacancies Act overrides a constitutional requirement. Mark knows this as sure as he knows his name. The appointment of Whitaker may be "legal," but it sure isn't constitutional.
Send this to that clown Napolitano!!!
Please God. I never liked Kelly!!
...and [the President] 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.
A few items to consider:
1. There's no distinction made for any such appointee working in an "acting" or "temporary" role, other than the language elsewhere regarding appointments while the Senate is in recess.
2. There have been many legal disputes over the years about the exact meaning of the term "inferior officers" under the Constitution, but there isn't a legal authority anywhere that would consider the U.S. Attorney General an "inferior officer" by any standard.
3. When presented with similar legal challenges in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court generally considers any presidential appointee who reports directly to the President as a "principal officer" who would absolutely require Senate confirmation.
Good idea
Do we remember any democrats squawking when Bill Clinton appointed Bill Lann Lee, who never did receive senate confirmation?
Trump can use that as precedent to do whatever he feels like doing. Make the dems live up to their own standards.
2. Other than a recess appointment -- which is explicitly defined as a Presidential appointment that is made while the Senate is not in session -- there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution for someone to be appointed in an "acting" or "temporary" role with no Senate confirmation to a post that requires Senate confirmation. Think of how ludicrous it would be if Barack Obama appointed Merrick Garland as an "acting U.S. Supreme Court Justice" after the GOP Senate refused to even hold a confirmation hearing for Garland.
For what it's worth, Justice Clarence Thomas laid this out clearly in his opinion in the infamous NLRB case in 2017. He wrote a concurring opinion that didn't carry the weight of the full Supreme Court in the decision, but he was adamant that the "acting role" provision of the Federal Vacancies Act is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation.
The federal vacancies act is advise and consent for a limited time.
Lee was a somewhat different case because he was serving in a role that required Senate confirmation under the provisions of an act of Congress, not under the Constitution. His post would almost certainly have been considered an “inferior officer” under the Appointments Clause. So in Lee’s case, his appointment was illegal but not unconstitutional. In Whitaker’s case, his appointment is legal but unconstitutional. Go figure. LOL.
That seems like an outlandish interpretation of the Appointments Clause to me.
I have no doubt that you’re smarter and/or better informed than I am, so I’ll defer to your expertise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.