Aristotle Wurtz Constitutional Law Question 1 Should the President have a right to remove the director of FBI, the

head of the CIA, and the head of the N.S.A? Introduction and Overview: The President has various controls over agencies. The President has the duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. In order to take care of the laws, he has the responsibility to appoint members to the agencies. Specifically, the president has the ability to appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate all Principle/Superior Officers of the U.S. He also has limited ability to appoint inferior officers, depending on whether Congress permits and allows him to do so. The Congress has to vest him with this power, or he is unable to execute these appointments. The difference between Principle/Superior officers and Inferior officers is that Superior officers include heads of independents agencies in the executive branch and heads of all executive departments. Superior officers also include other high level offices within these departments. Inferior offices are subordinate to these superior officers, and have the ability to exercise significant authority within the laws and attached to the laws of the United States. The President doesn’t have the ability to appoint employees who can’t be considered “officers of the United States”. The removal of these appointed officers is somewhat the same, but there are some differences. For, example the President doesn’t have unlimited power to remove all its appointees. He is unable to remove individuals who Congress restricts the President from removing them. These individuals or officers include ones who are involved with quasilegislative or quasi-judicial powers. In addition, the Congress has the authority to prevent the President from removing various inferior officers. In the case of Morrison, the Supreme Court decided that the presidential powers don’t extend to the removal of all inferior officers. Answer: Considering this, the President does have a right to remove the director of the FBI, the head of the CIA, and the head of the NSA. He appoints both the heads of the CIA and FBI, and has the right to consent to the appointment made by the Secretary of the Department of Defense on who should be the head of the NSA. These are all superior officers who are not involved with quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial matters. The President shouldn’t have the power to remove all three of these head officers. With this power, the President has a great deal of national security control. This could lead to radical changes in national security authority. This may hurt consistency within the defense of our country. One of the Constitution’s primary goals was to limit the power of the President and

523 Pursuant to presidential direction. or presidential appointees.maintain a balance of powers within the three branches of government. Question 1 Special Prosecutor: Does President of the United States have a right to remove the one he appointed or those appointed by others? Answer: This question was punted by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v Nixon. Left unsettled were two questions. by a federal district court.526 In subsequent litigation.—A dispute arose regarding the discharge of the Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate and prosecute violations of law in the Watergate matter.528]lated the regulations. that the firing by the Acting Attorney General had vio[p. it was held. Nixon528 seemed to confirm this analysis by the district court in upholding the authority of the new Special Prosecutor to take the President to court to obtain evidence in the President’s possession. The Congress gave the power to the attorney General to conduct criminal investigations involving government officials. the 1972 presidential election.522 and it further authorized him to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. This extensive control may give the President a great deal of ability to protect our nation in times of turmoil. The Attorney General in the 1970 picked a Watergate Special Prosecutor to investigate the details and situation involving the Watergate break-in. If the President has the ability to appoint all the head of our defense agencies and the right to remove them.”524 On October 20. The Watergate Controversy. the power of the President . but it didn’t decide on the issue of whether the President could remove the Special Prosecutor before the trial or anytime. The Court gave the authority of the Special Prosecutor to take a President to court. and allegations involving the President. following the resignations of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. the Attorney General designated a Watergate Special Prosecutor with broad power to investigate and prosecute offenses arising out of the Watergate break–in. which were in force at the time and which had to be followed until they were rescinded. the Solicitor General as Acting Attorney General formally dismissed the Special Prosecutor525 and three days later rescinded the regulation establishing the office. He was to remain in office until a date mutually agreed upon between the Attorney General and himself. but it goes against what our country was founded upon. and the regulations provided that the Special Prosecutor “will not be removed from his duties except for extraordinary improprieties on his part.527 The Supreme Court in United States v. members of the White House staff. he has an overwhelming amount of control. Congress vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the Federal Government.

resolution of the question became necessary. <http://www.doc delegation doectrine itelligeble principle&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.google. Web.himself to go over the heads of his subordinates and to fire the Special Prosecutor himself. first called the Special Prosecutor and then the Independent Counsel. 28 Feb.html>.com>. 2011. "CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article II. and the power of Congress to enact legislation establishing an Office of Special Prosecutor free from direction and control of the President. 2011. "Delegation Doctrine.edu/anncon/html/art2frag28_user. <http://webcache.law.usfca. 28 Feb.com/search? q=cache:3ha8rGXhZT8J:usf.cornell. whatever the regulations said.529 When Congress acted to create an office.googleusercontent. .edu/org/sba/outline_docs/2010/admin_law/Midterm-Honigsberg-Spring %202010." Google. Web.