>>4386305

the President's powers at our mercy.

It says that, “The” executive power not “some” executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States not a President of the United State and others.

How incompatible what we have done today is with what has until today been our political traditions maybe made clear by thinking what the result would have been if a statute had been passed seeking to do the same thing to one of the other two branches.

Would we have allowed Congress to pass a statute saying that henceforth one tiny bit of the power to enact laws, laws relating to bubble gum for example, would henceforth be exercised instead of by the House in the Senate by some new body established by statute.

Or would we have allowed Congress to take a tiny bit of the judicial power, the power to hear bankruptcy cases for example and give it to tribunals other than Article III Courts, the answers are obvious.

>>4386412

More specifically, Scalia contested the majority's conclusion that independent counsels were "inferior officers" who remained under the executive's ultimate control. An independent counsel, he suggested, actually possessed some powers and advantages that even the Attorney General did not. Scalia worried that an overzealous, unaccountable independent counsel could pick his or her targets, and then prosecute them for even the most minor or technical offenses. Moreover, Scalia wrote, a partisan Special Division might appoint a committed foe of the administration or the individual under investigation. "Nothing is so politically effective," he wrote, "as the ability to charge that one's opponent and his associates are not merely wrongheaded, naive, ineffective, but, in all probability, `crooks'." Scalia prophesied that the majority's decision would weaken the Presidency, and expose the head of the executive branch to "debilitating criminal investigations" – an opinion that has earned Justice Scalia new and unexpected admirers in recent days.