Matthew Whitaker Can Legally Serve as Acting AGl, JD Says

WSJl ^ | 11/14/2018 | Sadie Gurman

[CaptainK]

Trump’s DOJ says Whitaker can serve in acting role without Senate confirmation.

Matthew Whitaker can properly serve as acting attorney general without Senate confirmation, the Justice Department said in a legal opinion released Wednesday, though the document is unlikely to end the debate over Mr. Whitaker’s installation as the country’s top law-enforcement officer.

[conservativepoet]

Should be in breaking news

[Bratch]

This has to wind up in the SCOTUS, right?

[Paladin2]

How is the DoJustUs allowed to make their own law to govern themselves?

[CaptainK]

Isn’t everything going to the SC these days?

[CaptainK]

Shouldn't the JD know who is eligible to head their department?

[Alberta's Child]

It’s a valid legal argument, but the bigger question is whether the Federal Vacancies Act is constitutional as it applies to “principal officers” of the Executive Branch under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[Raycpa]

I assume the memorandum references laws and prior case rulings to document their analysis and conclusion

[norwaypinesavage]

The exact wording of section a3 of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, (5 U.S.C. § 3345) is:

"the President (and only the President) may direct an officer or employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if— (A)during the 365-day period preceding the date of death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve of the applicable officer, the officer or employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days"

I wonder which of those words the naysayers don't understand.

[laplata]

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

[Dahoser]

Shouldn't the JD know who is eligible to head their department?

Of course not when it's a Republican administration. Everyone knows that!

[Alberta's Child]

It's a legal opinion based on existing Federal statute.

I don't think Whitaker's appointment is constitutional, but I'm happy to see President Trump cause such havoc with this move. LOL.

[Obadiah]

What do the judges in Hawaii think?

[Constitution Day]

This has to wind up in the SCOTUS, right?

I hope it does.

[hsmomx3]

I’m waiting for the RATS heads to fall off any moment now.

[conservativepoet]

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
_____________

Yep, this news is good for many reasons.

[Alberta's Child]

The heart of the issue is simple. The U.S. Constitution requires every Presidential appointee other than “inferior Officers” to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. A Federal statute cannot override the Constitution.

[Alberta's Child]

P.S. — There’s no exception for “acting” or “temporary” appointments in the Constitution other than recess appointments, which is not the case here.

[madison10]

Yeah, like it is the ONLY good news of late.