It might be kind of me to try to gently lecture (
Fart Fume Indiana) on a few of the basic premises involved in any discussion of Judge Cannon’s decision as to Special Counsel Hack Smith’s alleged “appointment” to that “Office.” Kind. But probably pointless, since Farty is not mentally or educationally equipped to handle any of the various parts.
But still:
Let’s take it from the top. The Constitution. And let’s consider the words of Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.
Article II
Section 2 Powers
- Clause 2 Advice and Consent
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, … and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … 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.
This takes us to the questions at the heart of the issue:
Is the Office of Special Counsel “otherwise provided for” in the Constitution? No. It is not.
Therefore, BUT Congress is allowed by Law to vest the “Appoint [of] inferior Officers” in the President alone, in the Courts of Law or in the Heads of Departments.
So, if the Office of Special Counsel is an “inferior Office” (which dispenses with a need for Senate Advice and Consent), then it must be easy for Farty to point to the “Law” by which Congress vested appointment power in the President or in the Head of a Department.
Helpful hint for Farty: if you try to point to some such alleged “law,” you’ll need to point to an
existing law.
Go ahead, Farty, child. Go for it. Name that law.
