Constitutionality of Special Counsel

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is your legal opinion, but it is not fact. Only a court can do that, and it has not.

Correct.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[Tehon]

I understand. Since no law exists, the argument will have to be that one should exist. That will be very hard to support in arguments. The truth is that Mueller's appointment does not circumvent the Constitution. Hoow could it? Mueller's appointment is safe. The only problem with honesty are the lawyers who are billing $700 an hour on a case that should never have been filed.

The only support needed for the argument that a law is necessary is the Constitution's appointment clause.

And the case was brought against them, that is why they are called the defense. It should be the easiest money they ever made.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A very small chance. We will agree to disagree for now.

 

[Tehon]

That is your legal opinion, but it is not fact. Only a court can do that, and it has not.

Correct.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

If it gets that far.

 

[yiostheoy]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

U.S. Code, Title 28, Chapter VI, Part 600, Section 600.1
28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

 

[Tehon]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

Right, that is a federal regulation written by Janet Reno. It is unsupported by any federal code. There is no law that supports that regulation. Congress did not authorize it, therefore it is unconstitutional.

 

[Tehon]

What law establishes the position of special counsel?

Answer:
The Attorney General may appoint officials—
(1)to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States

28 U.S. Code § 533 - Investigative and other officials; appointment

 

[Skylar]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

A former aide of Roger Stone made a similar argument in federal court. In a 93 page ruling the argument is refuted and deconstructed. It gives a superb overview of the regulations and case law surrounding the appointment of special counsels.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

 

[Lysistrata]

Who was Ken Starr and how much did he spend?

Independent probes of Clinton Administration cost nearly $80 million - April 1, 1999

 

[Tehon]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

A former aide of Roger Stone made a similar argument in federal court. In a 93 page ruling the argument is refuted and deconstructed. It gives a superb overview of the regulations and case law surrounding the appointment of special counsels.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

That ruling is what led me to the answer.

 

[Skylar]

Who was Ken Starr and how much did he spend?

Independent probes of Clinton Administration cost nearly $80 million - April 1, 1999

Impossible. Starr was a republican and a judicial appointee under Reagan. And republicans are firm that only someone of ones own party and political affiliation can investigate a president.

Thus, there is no way republicans ever would have made a republican the special counsel in the investigation of a democratic president.

 

[Skylar]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

A former aide of Roger Stone made a similar argument in federal court. In a 93 page ruling the argument is refuted and deconstructed. It gives a superb overview of the regulations and case law surrounding the appointment of special counsels.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

That ruling is what led me to the answer.

It’s damn thorough.

 

[Tehon]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

A former aide of Roger Stone made a similar argument in federal court. In a 93 page ruling the argument is refuted and deconstructed. It gives a superb overview of the regulations and case law surrounding the appointment of special counsels.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

That ruling is what led me to the answer.

It’s damn thorough.

There was another motion to dismiss filed for the same reason in a separate case. I imagine the results will be the same.

 

[Skylar]

Can someone explain to me how the special counsel is constitutional? I seem to be having a difficult time understanding why it is so.

Article 2 Section 2 clearly states that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States who's position shall be established by law.

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.

I guess my first question would be; What law establishes the position of special counsel?

A former aide of Roger Stone made a similar argument in federal court. In a 93 page ruling the argument is refuted and deconstructed. It gives a superb overview of the regulations and case law surrounding the appointment of special counsels.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

That ruling is what led me to the answer.

It’s damn thorough.

There was another motion to dismiss filed for the same reason in a separate case. I imagine the results will be the same.

These are fairly awful legal challenges. Post-fact reasoning of twitter tends to splatter on the windshield of actual legal rulings.

 

[Lysistrata]

Who was Ken Starr and how much did he spend?

Independent probes of Clinton Administration cost nearly $80 million - April 1, 1999

Impossible. Starr was a republican and a judicial appointee under Reagan. And republicans are firm that only someone of ones own party and political affiliation can investigate a president.

Thus, there is no way republicans ever would have made a republican the special counsel in the investigation of a democratic president.

I'm hoping that I'm detecting satire here.

 

[Skylar]

Who was Ken Starr and how much did he spend?

Independent probes of Clinton Administration cost nearly $80 million - April 1, 1999

Impossible. Starr was a republican and a judicial appointee under Reagan. And republicans are firm that only someone of ones own party and political affiliation can investigate a president.

Thus, there is no way republicans ever would have made a republican the special counsel in the investigation of a democratic president.

I'm hoping that I'm detecting satire here.

Laughing!

Oh, yeah.