Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a246a4beeb482e5c

Jump to content

Talk:Appointments Clause

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Michael Hardy in topic Untitled

Untitled

[edit]

Currently this article says the following:

The Appointments Clause divides constitutional officers into two classes: principal officers, who must be appointed through the advice and consent mechanism; and inferior officers, who may be appointed through advice and consent of the Senate, but whose appointment Congress may place instead in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This would leave the reader under the impression that this clause of the Constitution uses the word principal and in particular the phrase principal officers. But it does not. The only reference in the Constitution to "principal officer" is in the previous paragraph where is says:

[The president] may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices

The term inferior officers, on the other hand, does appear in the appointments clause. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply