Mueller is not an inferior appointee, but a principal appointee

en.wikipedia.org...

Congress may by law delegate the Senate's advice and consent role when it comes to "inferior" officers (to the President alone, or the courts of law, or the heads of departments)

Mark Levin says that in 88' the courts outlined the scope of the different types of appointments.
He is stating that the previous special councils have all had narrow scopes of investigation and that the scotus outlined that specifically as being a prerequisite to an appointment that does not have to be voted on and signed in.
en.wikipedia.org...
This is the scotus ruling where the special council appointment role is constitutional but also outlines the acceptable scope.


en.wikipedia.org...
This is the scotus ruling that states the president has the power to fire any officers.

So my question to ats is robert muellers appointment constitutional and legal?

The Supreme Court case you referred to was a constitutional challenge to the Independent Counsel Act, which is the authority under which Assistant Attorney General Olson was being prosecuted, at that time. The argument was that the Independent Counsel was “too independent” i.e., did not have any oversight.

Mueller is not acting under the Independent Counsel Act. That expired some years ago. Mueller is acting under the Code of Federal Regulations (specifically, Title 28, Part 600)

www.law.cornell.edu...

His position is called “Special Counsel” and oversight is provided by the Acting Attorney General. That would be Rod Rosenstein.

No one has ever tried to challenge the authority of the CFRs as far as I know, and you can bet that if Trump’s lawyers thought that there was a ghost of a chance, they would already have brought it up.

So yes, Mueller’s appointment is probably Constitutional and legal.

a reply to: howtonhawky

How about not appointing career criminals as Independent counsels?

a reply to: 1947boomer

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok however you are wrong imo.

www.lawfareblog.com...

these regulations do not contemplate the delegation of a counterintelligence investigation to a Special Counsel; they focus on criminal investigations. The two kinds of investigations are significantly different in scope and function and rely on different investigative tools.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Why is it that Trump supporters could careless if any laws were broken but their favorite thing to say is "LOCK HER UP" ? Please explain!

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: howtonhawky

Why is it that Trump supporters could careless if any laws were broken but their favorite thing to say is "LOCK HER UP" ? Please explain!

I could not say.

I have never said those words.

I am speaking of the constitutional legalities of such investigations.

I really think you are missing my point here. You vaguely make the claim that i or others are possibly ignoring real crimes by the potus election team and such. I am stating that the constitutional way to get an investigation into such would be to identify the crimes and put in a special council to get to the bottom of such specific claims.

However making the generalized argument of possible crimes without specific detailed knowledge and then appointing a special council to go on a mission to find crimes is unconstitutional under the specific appointment type that mueller was appointed.

To go on a fact finding and crime finding mission as mueller has would take an appointment that would have to have not only be voted on but also signed off by the potus.

Tag for later thought ....

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: howtonhawky

Why is it that Trump supporters could careless if any laws were broken but their favorite thing to say is "LOCK HER UP" ? Please explain!

what laws have been broken and by whom?

Isn't it the same people who want to get something on trump, and will dig a hole to China to find any possible thing that they can use , even if it's not true, that think Hillary has done nothing wrong KNOWING full well that she has done so many things wrong or illegal and don't see a problem with that?
This is part of the reason that the world sees the US as a circus.

I'm deleting this because the information was very poorly presented.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I'm deleting this because the information was very poorly presented.

Awesome
I found your off switch