BARR’S THESIS STATEMENT
In Barr’s 1989, he addresses Presidential appointment powers, he completely tears apart Congress and its actions in the past, which has only been bolstered and is much worse than in 1989 when he wrote this.
“The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, provides that “Officers of the United States” must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or, where authorized by Congress, by the President alone, the courts, or the Heads of Departments.” And “By its terms, the [Appointments] Clause divides the appointment power into two separate spheres: the President’s power to ‘nominate,’ and the Senate’s power to give or withhold its ‘Advice and Consent.’ No role whatsoever is given either to the Senate or to Congress as a whole in the process of choosing the person who will be nominated for [the] appointment.” It is here, where I think Q is pointing out that Trump is still waiting on appointments. He has the constitutional authority to make appointments with or without Congress.
Also, he quotes : “President Reagan repeatedly had to stress, in signing bills into law, that such commissions may perform only advisory, investigative, informative, or ceremonial functions and may not perform regulatory, enforcement, or other executive responsibilities” and “Similar problems have frequently arisen in connection with commemorative commissions, where the violation of the Appointments Clause frequently has been compounded by making Members of the Senate or House members of those commissions, in violation of the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 2. Pursuant to that Clause, no person holding any office of the United States may be a Member of either House of Congress” This is where I’d like to do some investigating. I think Q might be pointing out that there are MANY violations in this area.
Then Section C of his thesis, it is labeled. “Delegation of Federal Executive Power.” His first statement is “One of the gravest new threats to executive branch power is Congress’s growing penchant for assigning the executive power to persons who are not part of the executive branch.” “It is well established that “conducting civil litigation in the courts of the United States for vindicating public rights” is at the core of Executive power and “may be discharged only by persons who are ‘Officers of the United States.” “(“[S]o far as the interests of the United States are concerned, [all suits] are subject to the direction, and within the control of, the Attorney General.”).
Now we get to #3. Here’s where it gets a bit more exciting. “The President, as the head o f a unitary executive branch, has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. Const, art. II, § 3, to coordinate and supervise his subordinates, and to ensure that the executive branch speaks with one voice” “The President’s power to remove subordinates is essential to carrying out these responsibilities. The constitutional limitations on congressional restrictions on the President’s removal authority “ensure that Congress does not interfere with the President’s exercise of the ‘executive power’ and his constitutionally appointed duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ under Article II.”
Remember….THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1989!!
Additionally, “Because the power to remove is the power to control, restrictions on removal power strike at the heart of the President’s power to direct the executive branch and perform his constitutional duties. In particular, the inability to 252 remove officers erodes significantly the President’s responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Section 9: 8. Requirements that Legislation be Submitted to Congress Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President is directed to recommend for legislative consideration “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Despite this Clause, Congress frequently attempts by statute to control the executive’s legislative priorities by requiring that the President or his subordinates recommend legislative measures on certain subjects. Because the President has plenary exclusive authority to determine whether and when he should propose legislation, any bill purporting to require the submission of recommendations is unconstitutional. If enacted, such “requirements” should be construed as only a recommendation to the President that he submit legislative proposals.
https://www.justice.gov/file/24286/download