Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

News Clash

Scholars Claim Mueller’s Appointment Violated Appointments Clause of Constitution

“Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause,” — Mark Levin

We won’t have to argue about whether or not Mueller should be fired, if his very position is founded on a lie.

Mark Levin and his friend, Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi, are in agreement that the investigation itself has a fatal design flaw. Those people who conferred the broad sweeping powers Mueller has been exercising had no right to do so.

In short, there are two kinds of appointees. Inferior appointees, and principal appointees, per their constitutional mandates.

Inferior appointees — which is to say, the vast majority of appointees — have a defined and limited scope of powers. They are also directly and regularly accountable within the larger authority structure of a principal appointee, and their subordinates.

Mueller is exercising a variety of powers that far exceed any comparable inferior appointee, which is to say he is behaving as one who possesses the powers of a Principal Appointee.

There’s just one problem with that. Every Principal Appointee has to go through the regularized process of nomination and confirmation. Mueller went through no such process.

Levin explains this in detail on his show:

From Mark’s Blog:

The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution…
Posted on May 21, 2018
The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Mueller is not an inferior appointee, but a principal appointee as understood under our constitutional. His powers are more akin to an United States attorney, not an assistant United States attorney. Moreover, his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, treats him as a principal officer — that is, Mueller is mostly free to conduct his investigation with few limits or restraints. The parameters of his appointment were extraordinarily broad in the first instance, and have only expanded since then. Indeed, Mueller is more powerful than most United States attorneys, all of whom were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as principal officers. Furthermore, Rosenstein mostly rubber stamps Mueller’s decisions and is not involved in the regular management and oversight of Mueller to any significant extent, underscoring Mueller’s role not as an inferior officer but a principal officer. As such, Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause. Mueller would’ve had to be nominated for Senate confirmation like any other principal officer in the Executive Branch. Rosenstein did not have the constitutional power to appoint a principal officer on his own anymore than the President himself does. To do otherwise is to defy the procedure established by the Framers for making such consequential executive appointments. It follows, then, that every subpoena, indictment, and plea agreement involving the Mueller investigation is null and void. Every defendant, suspect, witness, etc., in this matter should challenge the Mueller appointment as a violation of the Appointments Clause.
Source: Mark Levin Show

In his closing paragraph, he again credits Professor Steven Calabresi for the points he has raised.

His advice to Mueller’s team, anyone who is being questioned, anyone who is being targeted, anyone who has been indicted — challenge the Constitutional validity of Mueller’s authority to even submit the subpoena against you, to press a charge against you, to accept a plea deal…
he cannot exercise the powers of a Principal without having been confirmed, and the powers he is exercising far exceed that an inferior appointee could invoke.

And seeing how the lawyer overseeing the Manafort has already taken Mueller to the woodshed for exceeding his powers, this could get very interesting, indeed.

Get Doug Giles’ new book:

Rules For Radical Christians is not a survival devotional designed to help the young Christian adult limp through life. Rather, it is a road-tested, dominion blueprint that will equip the young adult with leadership skills and sufficient motivation to rise to a place of influence in an overtly non-Christian culture. Rules For Radical Christians gives the reader the keys to become strategically equipped to move into an anti-theistic environment and effectively influence it for the glory of God.

Get yours today!

You can choose either the classic Paperback to trigger your college professors and quasi-communist classmates, or the Kindle edition to always have it on hand.

What makes America so different from other nations? Other nations are built around regimes or systems. But America was built from on ideas. From a blank slate.

Built on ideas that are DANGEROUS to tyrants.

That we have God-Given Rights, like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Dangerous ideas. Like this one: the people, when threatened, have a God-Given right to stand up in defiance of any government that dares threaten any of those rights.

There’s a men’s version

And a women’s version, too

Because in America, the bros AND the ladies BOTH have a rich history of badass rowdiness.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *