I say let it go before the full senate for a vote. Then pass. Then such limitation of Presidential Constitutional Authority can be challenged before the SCOTUS. I do not see success in this attempt to limit the Presidents Constitutional Authority.
Well I thought you would have figured it out when I posted a link to what was going on 
Lol, now Grassley is a Rino. You trumpsters are gonna run out of Republicans to call Rinos!!!
1 Like
I was joking, but I know it’s impossible to tell the difference between sincerity and parody these days. 
2 Likes
I should have, but I skimmed through it. I read earlier articles that only mentioned “full senate” vote, so I assumed it was similar to a confirmation vote. We all know what happens when you assume… 
Nixon did have his special counsel fired, and that did not wind up as one of the proposed articles. The President selects his top people with advice and consent of the Senate. The constitution says nothing about requiring that advice and consent for firing. Can that be added in by legislation? I think Trump would have to veto such a bill, if passed.
The President doesn’t appoint the special counsel, the attorney general does. The question then becomes if the president can fire the person investigating him. I don’t think it makes sense to have a special counsel in the first place if they can be fired at the descretion of the people they were charged with investigating.
I said Nixon had the special counsel fired, not that he directly fired him. I short cut that statement once and some idiot thought I really thought the President directly fired him. No, Nixon finally appointed Borq as acting AG to fire Cox.
I assume the new bill has to do with anyone firing the counsel. Even now, Trump would have to fire Sessions or Rosenstein to get at Mueller.
Is there a difference in principle if a person directly fires a person, or has someone do it for them?
