(CNSNews.com) -- When asked whether the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate alleged Russia-Trump campaign collusion was unconstitutional, U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said, “no,” it was not unconstitutional.
At the U.S. Capital on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked the senator, “Prof. Steven Calabresi of Northwestern Law School and Mark Levin have argued that Robert Mueller’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause because he is a principal officer exercising at least the authority of a U.S. attorney but was not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate. Do you agree that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional?”
“No," replied Sen. Flake
Prof. Calabresi has argued that Robert Mueller’s appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is unconstitutional because he has taken legal actions appropriate only to the assistant attorney general or the 93 permanent U.S. attorneys, who are principal officers.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that principal officers must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. Calabresi argues that because Mueller acts like a principal officer but was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate, his appointment is unconstitutional.