>>6095032 OB

>>6095038 >>6095045 >>6095073

>>6095079 >>6095211 >>6095229

Regarding POTUS relying on "Acting" rather than confirmed appointments of principle officers.

Anons, remember balance. Yes, within limitations, a president using his discretion in the use of "acting" over confirmed is a matter of political expediency. Useful.

However, return to the principles of the Republic and examine the sound reasoning for the Senate's check on such significant appointments. Do not let our eagerness for POTUS to succeed cause us to trample upon the fundamentals that make the Republic stable and effective and worth fighting and dieing for. Ours is not the only form of government for which patriots around the world have fought and died. People will put all on the line for their country, yes, but we also have a unique Republic. Balancing the two, love of country and principled commitment to our form of self-governance, is the key.

The keystone.

See pic for description of the mechanism that causes citizens to re-examine the basis of the constitutional form and the basis for comity and political prudence. Such an examination re-generates the Republic.

As citizens we are not merely on the sidelines. We become modern day Founders as we wrestle with the reasons for the Republic that is at stake.

POTUS is correct to use "Acting", yes, and there are limitations that arise from comity and political prudence, yes, however in times of deep conflict -- such as the quasi-civil-war in which we find ourselves neck deep -- those limitations will, and should be, tested by all sides.

WWG1WGA

Think what that phrase means.

WWG1WGA

Think of the Republic and its renewal. Our generation is making history. Survival first but close second is what survives.

Allspeed Anons.

>>6096755

Sauce for tthe pic, re Appointments Clause.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/91/appointments-clause

>>6096800

New permanent appointment entails specific confirmation. Acting is temporary, structurally, as per a department's line of succession or as per statutory provision for a fill-in during nomination process.

That said, your question has many levels to it and most of the answers arising from those levels have yet to be definitively established. Legalese can get in the way of understanding the basics so instead here are the broad strokes.

A department may have specific legislation which would take precedence over general legislation on the matter.

Confirmation is necessary for the specific long-term appointment. Having been previously confirmed does not do the trick, unless the previous appointment was next in the line of succession for that department. However in that case the "acting" is temporary even if it could run the remaining duration of the president's term in office. Long-term temp is different from permanent appointment of a principal officer.

Still, new man on the job, new confirmation, is the general rule that applies, as far I understand. Having been previously confirmed for a different job does not transform into a confirmation for new appointment.

For the political aspect, yes, having already been confirmed helps in the nomination-confirmation-appointment process.