The question of whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is constitutional is examined by George Will in his latest column:
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 … Read More ➡
Today, legal action was initiated to have the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller declared unconstitutional.
The action came in the form of a Motion to Quash a subpoena issued to a Grand Jury witness on the basis that Mueller’s probe is unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause. The Motion was filed this morning by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar.
The witness, Andrew Miller of St. Louis, had been ordered to appear before a Grand Jury tomorrow, June 29, at the federal district Court in the District of Columbia.
Miller is also represented by Alicia I. Dearn, a St. Louis-based attorney.
Legal scholars have argued that Mueller’s appointment runs afoul of the Appointments Clause because Mueller is acting like a “principal officer” with broad powers thereby requiring Senate confirmation rather than as an “inferior officer,” a distinction clearly made in the Constitution. Constitutional scholar Steven Calabresi encouraged anyone charged or … Read More ➡