Interesting ... especially since a newly appointed Supreme court justice is waiting in the wings.
Trump says Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional. Is he right?The president, who might not be fully acquainted with the pertinent Supreme Court case law, says the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel was unconstitutional. The president’s opinion, because it is his, is prima facie evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is, however, not sufficient evidence. Consider the debate between two serious people who have immersed themselves in the history of the appointments clause, which says:
“[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.â€
The debate turns on the distinction the Supreme Court has drawn between “inferior†and “principal†officers. If Mueller is among the latter, his appointment was invalid because he was neither nominated by the president — he was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein — nor confirmed by the Senate...........
..........Two intelligent lawyers disagree about this momentous matter, concerning which the Supreme Court’s nine justices might eventually be dispositive.
If Mueller’s appointment is challenged, and the case gets to the court, and five justices reason as Calabresi does, Mueller’s subpoenas, indictments and other acts will be null and void.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-says-muellers-appointment-was-unconstitutional-is-he-right/2018/07/11/4b8d5a3e-845c-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.fe95e8d78363